<p>i guess its a little late to ask now, but it seems like unless you've won some big science fair or an olympiad, you're just one of the pack. i mean i think i have decent ec's (national-class chess player, various leader positions/awards in other clubs, summer research programs), but when i read about ppl winning olympiads or big science fairs, i shrivel up inside.</p>
<p>same here man.</p>
<p>i am just a regular kid</p>
<p>Just keep in mind that MIT admits ~1500 people per year. The overwhelming majority of those people, while very intelligent, are not wunderkind.</p>
<p>A sampling from people sitting in the lounge:
Me '06-- marching band (flag), show choir, theater
Adam '07 -- marching band (sax), cross country, track, freestyle skiing
Mark '07 -- president of school's The Simpson's Club (I'm not kidding)
Jay '08 -- baseball, worked at a hardware store
Kate '07 -- Model UN, competitive public speaking
Dave '07 -- cross country
Jomar '06 -- Science Bowl, Spanish Club, chess team
Chris '09 -- teacher's aide, Model UN
Kjel '09 -- band (trombone), rocket team</p>
<p>Agreed, Math/Science super prodigies are not the norm. That said, the general caliber of student is still outstanding.</p>
<p>what if you're a math/science person with a lot of music ec's, and polysci activities haha</p>
<p>they must've found that weird... "ok he wants to be a chemist, 800 Math sat 800 math II... wth, violinist, orchestra, concertmaster... DEBATE???? MUN???"</p>
<p>Not too weird. I'd say a lot of people here are muscially inclined. And I think you'd be hardpressed to surprise and admissions officer. They've seen quite a bit...</p>
<p>DAMN IT... oh well... but if you look at the activities i put, it makes it seem i'd want to be more polysci</p>
<p>Thanks MIT people for answering this so well! We're looking to build a diverse campus. Enough said.</p>
<p>Are top 10 national science olympiad individual and team rankings helpful for an application? It seems to me like schools don't respect national science olympiad as much as ICho, IMo, etc??</p>
<p>All Olympiads are helpful, although some more than others. But you should list any involvement you've had.</p>
<p>JSuresh and namkim: no big science fairs or Olympiads for me. Read the last bit of my first ever blog entry (<a href="http://laura.mitblogs.com/archives/2005/07/so_who_is_this.html)%5B/url%5D">http://laura.mitblogs.com/archives/2005/07/so_who_is_this.html)</a>. I basically didn't even know what an Olympiad was in HS. Still not totally clear on it, in fact. So no worries, there is hope! =)</p>
<p>atomicfusion - there is a contest called "Science Olympiad" that is a much lower level than "the science olympiadS", which are the international contests in math, physics, informatics, biology, chemistry. The term is usually used loosely to include the contests that lead up to selection of the team for a particular country. So even though only 6 people represent the US at the IMO (Int'l Math Olympiad) for instance, there are 250-300 who get nat'l recognition by qualifying for the USAMO (USA Math Olympiad), and 30 or so who get even higher level recognition by qualifying for MOP (the training program for the US team to the IMO). These people are scattered over multiple grades, and some qualify multiple times, so the number actually applying to college in a given year who have this is small.</p>
<p>So, even if MIT took every single person who was highly ranked at the int'l or national level in a math/science olympiad, plus Siemens-Westinghouse, plus Intel, plus RSI, it would add up to a fairly small number of people (less than 100). The overwelming majority of people admitted to MIT do not have that kind of thing. They have ECs like the original poster.</p>
<p>Which is better, joining prestigious summer research programs or expanding on your own ideas and researching them. One would think the latter is more unique and advantageous, in terms of the application, since it demonstrates a unique combination of initiative and innovativeness. However, I don't think the admission results seem to substantiate this assertion. It seems many students with summer research seem to be greatly advantaged, but I haven't heard from anyone from MIT who has pursued their own ideas and gotten in.
Either:
1. these people don't get in
2. these people are a minority and are often unheard of
3. these people do get in and are common at MIT and my nonrandom, biased sample of 8 students is unrepresentative of the majority of MIT students</p>
<p>I don't know more than 8 MIT students, of the thousands that attend. Mollie, you seem to have been in MIT for quite a while (class of '06), maybe you could shed some light. Also Ben Jones, if you have the time, I'd appreciate your experienced perspective. </p>
<p>Please don't give me the context spiel :-). I know we're judged within our the context of our environment, opportunities, etc... What if we kept all other variables constant?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which is better, joining prestigious summer research programs or expanding on your own ideas and researching them.
[/quote]
The problem is, colleges cannot really substantiate whatever claims you make about work you do on your own. Not that they won't believe you, more that it's difficult to know what your claims mean in the same way that they understand what it means when a student participates in a well known program. If you claim, say, that you have found an alternate solution to Fermat's last theorem, but no one has seen it and your high school math record is mediocre, how should a college interpret that? If it has already been vetted by a professional publication or a contest like Intel, or they have a corroborating letter from a prof who worked with you, then they have some idea how to interpret it. If all they have is you saying you came up with something profound, that's more problemmatic.</p>
<p>It's kind of the same issue as homeschoolers. It would be easy for a homeschooler to create a fabulous transcript filled with straight A's in the most advanced courses ever seen. But without some supporting evidence like standardized test scores, grades from regular courses, recs from profs, or a detailed portfolio of the student's work, what does that really mean? If you are a homeschooler with a 5 on the BC calc exam in 8th grade, and A's advanced college math courses, then people will probably believe you if you say that you also pursued significant math research on your own. But if you claim that you did all of those things on your own, with no outside evidence at all, than it is more problemmatic.</p>
<p>well I've got the marching band aspect covered :)</p>
<p>as for "the simpson's club", I think its code name is "Stonecutter's club"</p>
<p>Your post makes sense, for the most part. That's why I chose to get my science letter of rec from a JC professor (who coincidentally wrote about some of my research). I'm unclear as to what you mean by "colleges cannot really substantiate whatever claims you make about work you do on your own." For example, I've filed for patents for thirteen of my inventions. Would you consider this a concrete proof? Or would they need to see my patent submission forms, etc...?</p>
<p>Also, anyone who's very familliar with the MIT student body, please continue to comment on the specifics of post 13.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>zking - 13 inventions sounds like a wonderful accomplishment! I don't think you have to submit your patent application forms. They don't need a copy of the certifcate if you say you were a USAMO finalist; they just take your word for it (although I suppose they could confirm it on the internet if they had reason to doubt you). The problem would occur if you had unusual claims that did not fit with the objective part of your application, and there was no intersection at all with the outside world. (like, "I've never made more than a C in a science course and my recs suck, but hey, I just thought of a cure for cancer while playing Donkey Kong!")</p>
<p>Haha... "I've never made more than a C in a science course and my recs suck, but hey, I just thought of a cure for cancer while playing Donkey Kong!" </p>
<p>Thanks for the clarification!</p>
<p>There were 13 students from my son's class admitted to MIT last year. Of these, two had summer research to point to. The others either did summer coursework or, in several cases, held summer jobs (some at companies related to the coursework they'd like to follow in college, some at <em>stores</em>) or did nearly full-time community service work over the summer. Think outside the narrow box: all sorts of people are admitted to MIT.</p>
<p>To be honest, not many of my friends did research at all before coming here. I have no idea what percentage of MIT undergrads do research before they come here, but I certainly don't know any other than two: one did cancer research in a lab for two summers during high school, and one was in RSI.</p>
<p>I really don't think one type of research is inherently "better" than the other, and I think it's a bit of a futile exercise to try and quantify these factors.</p>
<p>Oh! I thought of another one. She lived in Maryland, near the NIH, and did research at a biology lab at the NIH while she was in high school.</p>
<p>I think the reason you see more people getting into MIT with participation in research "programs" is that, for most high schoolers, it's the only way to get involved with research. Outside of school and structured programs, most high schoolers don't have access to high-tech lab equipment. That doesn't, I think, indicate that research done in a program is favored, rather, it shows that most research today must be done in a lab setting since it requires expensive/complicated machinery.</p>