<p>tangent: does MIT recruit athletes like Harvard Yale Princeton do?</p>
<p>Automaticity and speed is a necessary component to mathematics, even proofs. The SAT math is very basic and has only very basic formulas on it. Like Narcissa said, most USAMO winners and guys who are extremely good at proofs find the SAT math extremely easy. If you are one of those strange people who does well with the hard conceptual stuff like abstract algebra (group theory) but is a bit slow in basic computation or recalling formulas, then you need to work extra hard on this. That is, you should be adjusting for this (study more) so that it does not show up in assessments of your ability like the SAT or your classes. </p>
<p>Creativity is key and a lot of people don't have it. But in order for you to do well in mathematics eventually you need to commit formulas to memory. You can't be re-deriving everything from scratch all the time.
Also, it is easier to see the big picture when you no longer have to stumble over the small details.</p>
<p>"Also, a teacher that taught her has questioned how she got in.."</p>
<p>Wow! What a gem that teacher is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, but when you don't even care to do anything regarding science (which you are supposedly "passionate" about) outside of normal coursework, you might not be up for being an engineer where you're basically surrounded by science in your careers for the rest of your life.
[/quote]
Please re-read what you have just written, and THINK extra hard about why your statement is laughable.</p>
<p>Maybe you should take a look at your argument that basically states that failure to be involved in high school competitions from the ages 14-18 totally implies a lack of aptitude to become an engineer for life.</p>
<p>I suggest you take a class in logic. :) Maybe you already have. Time to apply what you've learnt.</p>
<p>^perhaps not, but It sure doesn't show a lot of passion.</p>
<p>galoisen, we are talking about admission to MIT, which is the foremost technical institution on the planet. With so many brilliant applicants, it's not unreasonable to expect that an admit has some demonstrated <em>high</em> aptitude, interest, and drive for scholarly activity. </p>
<p>I agree, though, someone can become a great engineer or a scientist if they begin to apply themselves more in college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow! What a gem that teacher is.
[/quote]
Not implying anything, but she is actually the nicest teacher I've ever had. We have optional class on saturdays and sundays at her house to cover extra chapters...but only if we want to go :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
But in order for you to do well in mathematics eventually you need to commit formulas to memory. You can't be re-deriving everything from scratch all the time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm... I wonder if this is true, though. For example, at the moment, I have no idea what the series expansion of sin(x) is. Oh, but wait:</p>
<p>e^(ix) = sum<em>0^inf z^n/(n!) = 1 + ix - x^2/2 - ix^3/6 + ...
Group together. But we know that e^(ix) = cos(x) + isin(x), so the i group will be the sin Taylor expansion:
sin(x) = sum</em>0^inf (-1)^n/(2n+1)! x^(2n+1)!</p>
<p>That took like 5 seconds. Not difficult. I can do that with pretty much anything. I don't see why memorizing formulas is necessary unless you're working with physics or some other applied stuff. Pure math is thinking. No formulas. At least in my opinion. Most formulas are simply concepts in math form. Grasp the concepts and you should be good.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm sure there were. But there's a difference. I think MIT tries to admit the best out of each group of people, so the ORMs and Whites that got in over me were, well, mistakes.
[/quote]
AHAHAHA you totally got owned. Is that all you can come up with? All of the ORMs and White who got in over your with lower stats are "mistakes." Do you think any one is going to take this as a valid argument? ROFL...</p>
<p>
[quote]
In any case, those defending the hypothesis that URMs and women don't get any advantages over ORMs/whites and men are simply deceiving themselves. There is no evidence for a reason: MIT will never release such records (for women, they will give admittance rate [which strongly supports my hypothesis], but won't release average test scores). In fact, MIT releases a hell of a lot of data, but the mentioned data are two that are mysteriously missing. However, common sense and the vast amount of anecdotal evidence give a strong argument for the side that argues that being a URM/woman gives you an advantage in the MIT application process. If it didn't, they'd just take the race/gender questions off of the application to please everyone.
[/quote]
Anyways...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not implying anything, but she is actually the nicest teacher I've ever had. We have optional class on saturdays and sundays at her house to cover extra chapters...but only if we want to go
[/quote]
I am speechless right now... who would ever go to an optional class on a Saturday or Sunday?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree, though, someone can become a great engineer or a scientist if they begin to apply themselves more in college.
[/quote]
There is hardly any evidence that shows that high achieving children grow into high achieving adults. In fact most of the research on this subject show the exact opposite.</p>
<p>And perhaps I shouldn't have been too clear-cut in saying that "she MUST have gotten in because she's a girl," which, of course, isn't true. Just saying that it <em>looks</em> like AA is at work here.</p>
<p>There is actually more information but I can't say. But my description of her is accurate.</p>
<p>Newjack: are you saying that AA doesn't exist at MIT?</p>
<p>
[quote]
That took like 5 seconds. Not difficult. I can do that with pretty much anything. I don't see why memorizing formulas is necessary unless you're working with physics or some other applied stuff. Pure math is thinking. No formulas. At least in my opinion. Most formulas are simply concepts in math form. Grasp the concepts and you should be good.
[/quote]
Yes, but that's because you've seen the proof before...and understood it (which is my "type" of memorization). It probably wouldn't have taken 5 seconds if you had to prove it out by scratch...would it? or are you a math genius? :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you are one of those strange people who does well with the hard conceptual stuff like abstract algebra (group theory) but is a bit slow in basic computation or recalling formulas, then you need to work extra hard on this. That is, you should be adjusting for this (study more) so that it does not show up in assessments of your ability like the SAT or your classes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not an issue in my classes, just the SAT; it didn't show up in the AP exams for example (where the problems were far more interesting).</p>
<p>Besides, I'd like to be able to fully explore a problem rather than read each problem like crazy and scramble to put answers down.</p>
<p>I've never thought the SAT math section was too long or even remotely touching AMC level; it seems like everyone thinks that doing SAT math problems involves "scrambling like crazy" or something?</p>
<p>I don't think the SAT is a horrible test per se, but I still think that if you're amazing at the harder questions where you have to be very clear about the basic stuff and then twist your concepts, you'd still be very clear AND fast at the SAT...simple stuff.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Newjack: are you saying that AA doesn't exist at MIT?
[/quote]
Where did this question come from? No, that's not what I am saying at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, but that's because you've seen the proof before...and understood it (which is my "type" of memorization). It probably wouldn't have taken 5 seconds if you had to prove it out by scratch...would it? or are you a math genius?
[/quote]
What good does it do you to be able to figure it out from scratch? If you are an engineer how often will you be required to prove/rediscover proofs/formulas/etc.? This is why I do not think it is a big deal if MIT accepts those whom you consider "less qualified" at the "supposedly direct expense" of "more qualified" applicants. Both can do the work so why not just choose whomever you desire more/has more to offer his or her peers?</p>
<p>
[quote]
galoisen, we are talking about admission to MIT, which is the foremost technical institution on the planet. With so many brilliant applicants, it's not unreasonable to expect that an admit has some demonstrated <em>high</em> aptitude, interest, and drive for scholarly activity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Naturally -- but I have this feeling it's not necessarily in the ways that Narcissa expects.</p>
<p>For my applications, I made use of the fact that I was a Wikipedia administrator and that I frequently blogged about linguistics and frequently debated with corresponded with other individuals around the world on the subject through the internet. I didn't have a chance to attend the North American linguistic competition or whatever. Whatever I did for a school EC only occurred in my senior year.</p>
<p>Narcissa, you keep saying you know this girl. But are you friends? Do you think that she tells you everything she's involved in?</p>
<p>Your failure to distinguish between what you PERCEIVE and what IS worries me. You after all say that you're passionate in math and science, which means you should know better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've never thought the SAT math section was too long or even remotely touching AMC level; it seems like everyone thinks that doing SAT math problems involves "scrambling like crazy" or something?
[/quote]
It's the way it's divided up into too many small sections. Many people wish the SAT were more like the ACT/AP exams/real exams where you only have one section.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think the SAT is a horrible test per se, but I still think that if you're amazing at the harder questions where you have to be very clear about the basic stuff and then twist your concepts, you'd still be very clear AND fast at the SAT...simple stuff.
[/quote]
I disagree. To be successful on the SAT math section you need to be able to grind through it. However, to be successful in higher level math courses you need to use more of your brain/critical thinking skills/be more creative/etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, you're a girl what's wrong with you?
[/quote]
Never said I was against AA for girls, but just pointing out what's wrong with it :) </p>
<p>Aiight perhaps I took it too far to say that she got in at the expense of more qualified applicants or whatnot (which is probably not true anyways), but it always ****es me off when someone says "Oh it must be because her essays were EXCELLENT!" when we all know that AA exists. Yes, she is qualified and yes she will probably make a great engineer. I wouldn't necessarily want to go to a school without any AA at all--that's one reason why many people don't apply to caltech.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Naturally -- but I have this feeling it's not necessarily in the ways that Narcissa expects.
[/quote]
Actually, that is pretty close to what I was thinking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To be successful on the SAT math section you need to be able to grind through it.
[/quote]
Do you know how much "grinding" the AIME involves? Multiplying 3 digit numbers, adding subtracting dividing large numbers...without a calculator? Finding the factorials of 2-digit numbers? I agree it's a horrible format, but they expect that once you're at that level your 3-digit multiplication skills would be adequate and you will make very few careless mistakes.</p>
<p>Actually, the AIME kinda sux that way.</p>
<p>"If you are an engineer how often will you be required to prove/rediscover proofs/formulas/etc.?"</p>
<p>At MIT? pretty often. </p>
<p>And besides, like phuruiku said, being able to think is an aid to memory. I agree with him there. There are too many formulas to remember if you aren't able to reason out why they are the way they are; you won't remember how to use them correctly. I mean, like in thermodynamics all the equations look very simple and they basically consist of 2 or 3 variables of a set of 10 possible thermodynamic quantities. But they are very subtle. If you haven't reasoned them out, good luck consulting your textbook. The people who aren't inclined to think through the concepts and equations and/or derive them won't do well applying them. And those people die in chemical engineering.</p>
<p>I don't think you're ever going to comprehend the obvious...</p>
<p>^and that is...?</p>