How to check AMC 8 results online?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No one ever wants to admit this but the AMC is definitely a test you can figure out with practice. Now if a kid is figuring out the tricks on his own that’s talent. I say this as a parent of a child who is great at math, algebra I before 6th, aops student, yada yada yada. IMO it’s all training. I wonder if that’s a more eastern way of looking at high achievement though.

There is a huge difference in the philosophies. Americans love the idea of "natural talent." A more eastern philosophy would celebrate the hard work and resulting achievement much moreso than natural talent. No one ever wants to admit this, but unless you're at the extremely elite levels in math, music, sports, art, or whatever, it's generally all about training rather than natural talent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one ever wants to admit this but the AMC is definitely a test you can figure out with practice. Now if a kid is figuring out the tricks on his own that’s talent. I say this as a parent of a child who is great at math, algebra I before 6th, aops student, yada yada yada. IMO it’s all training. I wonder if that’s a more eastern way of looking at high achievement though.

There is a huge difference in the philosophies. Americans love the idea of "natural talent." A more eastern philosophy would celebrate the hard work and resulting achievement much moreso than natural talent. No one ever wants to admit this, but unless you're at the extremely elite levels in math, music, sports, art, or whatever, it's generally all about training rather than natural talent.

Yes, talent is a necessary prerequisite at the highest levels, but training is vastly more important for doing well at the highest level. The kids at or near the top train for hours a day, every day. A significant number of kids could do well on the AMCs just on natural talent with minimal training (obviously not most, but not just the rare few). On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to do really well on the higher levels of competitions without extensive training. But I agree in general that western culture wants to put more value on "natural talent" than training/hard work than they should.

[Anonymous]

25/25

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:25/25

Are they available for this year??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:25/25

Are they available for this year??

DP. No. PP's kid most likely copied down their answers and then checked them against the official answer key. My kid finally received his AMC 10 results four days ago, and the tests were in early/mid November. You'll probably be waiting a long time for the official AMC 8 results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one ever wants to admit this but the AMC is definitely a test you can figure out with practice. Now if a kid is figuring out the tricks on his own that’s talent. I say this as a parent of a child who is great at math, algebra I before 6th, aops student, yada yada yada. IMO it’s all training. I wonder if that’s a more eastern way of looking at high achievement though.

There is a huge difference in the philosophies. Americans love the idea of "natural talent." A more eastern philosophy would celebrate the hard work and resulting achievement much moreso than natural talent. No one ever wants to admit this, but unless you're at the extremely elite levels in math, music, sports, art, or whatever, it's generally all about training rather than natural talent.

Yes, talent is a necessary prerequisite at the highest levels, but training is vastly more important for doing well at the highest level. The kids at or near the top train for hours a day, every day. A significant number of kids could do well on the AMCs just on natural talent with minimal training (obviously not most, but not just the rare few). On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to do really well on the higher levels of competitions without extensive training. But I agree in general that western culture wants to put more value on "natural talent" than training/hard work than they should.

Like Michael Jordan is a natural talent! I dont think he ever went to a practice

There is an eastern European who trained his 3 daughters right from early ages for chess. All 3 ranked in the top 15. Two of them in the top 6 I think.

How is natural talent developed? Something triggers in their early childhood that gives them practice at that particular thing. That advantage cascades through positive reinforcement. We have a study in california in the 60s where some kids were given a test and the top 20% were tracked for decades. The top 20% performed much better than the rest of the class in a significant way. The catch is the test is a trick. The researchers selected the top 20% by random! But being told they are the top 20%, they are better than others, better coaching/advanced classes, etc cascaded into life long advantages. We have many examples like this.

In USA in kids sports, we treat everyone as if they have the potential to do well. But when it comes to math, that attitude goes out. Only some are supposed to do well.

As an Asian, I find this so painful. So many kids with so much potential goes wasted due to this attitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one ever wants to admit this but the AMC is definitely a test you can figure out with practice. Now if a kid is figuring out the tricks on his own that’s talent. I say this as a parent of a child who is great at math, algebra I before 6th, aops student, yada yada yada. IMO it’s all training. I wonder if that’s a more eastern way of looking at high achievement though.

There is a huge difference in the philosophies. Americans love the idea of "natural talent." A more eastern philosophy would celebrate the hard work and resulting achievement much moreso than natural talent. No one ever wants to admit this, but unless you're at the extremely elite levels in math, music, sports, art, or whatever, it's generally all about training rather than natural talent.

Yes, talent is a necessary prerequisite at the highest levels, but training is vastly more important for doing well at the highest level. The kids at or near the top train for hours a day, every day. A significant number of kids could do well on the AMCs just on natural talent with minimal training (obviously not most, but not just the rare few). On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to do really well on the higher levels of competitions without extensive training. But I agree in general that western culture wants to put more value on "natural talent" than training/hard work than they should.

Like Michael Jordan is a natural talent! I dont think he ever went to a practice

There is an eastern European who trained his 3 daughters right from early ages for chess. All 3 ranked in the top 15. Two of them in the top 6 I think.

How is natural talent developed? Something triggers in their early childhood that gives them practice at that particular thing. That advantage cascades through positive reinforcement. We have a study in california in the 60s where some kids were given a test and the top 20% were tracked for decades. The top 20% performed much better than the rest of the class in a significant way. The catch is the test is a trick. The researchers selected the top 20% by random! But being told they are the top 20%, they are better than others, better coaching/advanced classes, etc cascaded into life long advantages. We have many examples like this.

In USA in kids sports, we treat everyone as if they have the potential to do well. But when it comes to math, that attitude goes out. Only some are supposed to do well.

As an Asian, I find this so painful. So many kids with so much potential goes wasted due to this attitude.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r

Polgár was born in Gyöngyös. He studied intelligence when he was a university student. He later recalled that "when I looked at the life stories of geniuses" during his student years, "I found the same thing...They all started at a very young age and studied intensively."[3] He prepared for fatherhood prior to marriage, reported People Magazine in 1987, by studying the biographies of 400 great intellectuals, from Socrates to Einstein. He concluded that if he took the right approach to child-rearing, he could turn "any healthy newborn" into "a genius."[4] In 1992, Polgár told the Washington Post: "A genius is not born but is educated and trained….When a child is born healthy, it is a potential genius."

..

Polgár's daughters all became excellent chess players, but Sophia, the least successful of the three, who became the sixth-best woman player in the world, quit playing and went on to study painting and interior design and to focus on being a housewife and mother. Judit has been described as "without a doubt, the best woman chess player the world has ever seen."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one ever wants to admit this but the AMC is definitely a test you can figure out with practice. Now if a kid is figuring out the tricks on his own that’s talent. I say this as a parent of a child who is great at math, algebra I before 6th, aops student, yada yada yada. IMO it’s all training. I wonder if that’s a more eastern way of looking at high achievement though.

There is a huge difference in the philosophies. Americans love the idea of "natural talent." A more eastern philosophy would celebrate the hard work and resulting achievement much moreso than natural talent. No one ever wants to admit this, but unless you're at the extremely elite levels in math, music, sports, art, or whatever, it's generally all about training rather than natural talent.

Yes, talent is a necessary prerequisite at the highest levels, but training is vastly more important for doing well at the highest level. The kids at or near the top train for hours a day, every day. A significant number of kids could do well on the AMCs just on natural talent with minimal training (obviously not most, but not just the rare few). On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to do really well on the higher levels of competitions without extensive training. But I agree in general that western culture wants to put more value on "natural talent" than training/hard work than they should.

Like Michael Jordan is a natural talent! I dont think he ever went to a practice

There is an eastern European who trained his 3 daughters right from early ages for chess. All 3 ranked in the top 15. Two of them in the top 6 I think.

How is natural talent developed? Something triggers in their early childhood that gives them practice at that particular thing. That advantage cascades through positive reinforcement. We have a study in california in the 60s where some kids were given a test and the top 20% were tracked for decades. The top 20% performed much better than the rest of the class in a significant way. The catch is the test is a trick. The researchers selected the top 20% by random! But being told they are the top 20%, they are better than others, better coaching/advanced classes, etc cascaded into life long advantages. We have many examples like this.

In USA in kids sports, we treat everyone as if they have the potential to do well. But when it comes to math, that attitude goes out. Only some are supposed to do well.

As an Asian, I find this so painful. So many kids with so much potential goes wasted due to this attitude.

I’m the op of this particular thread. I haven’t responded since then. I am in 100% agreement with you.

These kids who have been in AoPS since first grade are not gifted in math. They have been trained very well in math. Which is great and not meant to take away from their accomplishments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one ever wants to admit this but the AMC is definitely a test you can figure out with practice. Now if a kid is figuring out the tricks on his own that’s talent. I say this as a parent of a child who is great at math, algebra I before 6th, aops student, yada yada yada. IMO it’s all training. I wonder if that’s a more eastern way of looking at high achievement though.

There is a huge difference in the philosophies. Americans love the idea of "natural talent." A more eastern philosophy would celebrate the hard work and resulting achievement much moreso than natural talent. No one ever wants to admit this, but unless you're at the extremely elite levels in math, music, sports, art, or whatever, it's generally all about training rather than natural talent.

Yes, talent is a necessary prerequisite at the highest levels, but training is vastly more important for doing well at the highest level. The kids at or near the top train for hours a day, every day. A significant number of kids could do well on the AMCs just on natural talent with minimal training (obviously not most, but not just the rare few). On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to do really well on the higher levels of competitions without extensive training. But I agree in general that western culture wants to put more value on "natural talent" than training/hard work than they should.

Like Michael Jordan is a natural talent! I dont think he ever went to a practice

There is an eastern European who trained his 3 daughters right from early ages for chess. All 3 ranked in the top 15. Two of them in the top 6 I think.

How is natural talent developed? Something triggers in their early childhood that gives them practice at that particular thing. That advantage cascades through positive reinforcement. We have a study in california in the 60s where some kids were given a test and the top 20% were tracked for decades. The top 20% performed much better than the rest of the class in a significant way. The catch is the test is a trick. The researchers selected the top 20% by random! But being told they are the top 20%, they are better than others, better coaching/advanced classes, etc cascaded into life long advantages. We have many examples like this.

In USA in kids sports, we treat everyone as if they have the potential to do well. But when it comes to math, that attitude goes out. Only some are supposed to do well.

As an Asian, I find this so painful. So many kids with so much potential goes wasted due to this attitude.

I’m the op of this particular thread. I haven’t responded since then. I am in 100% agreement with you.

These kids who have been in AoPS since first grade are not gifted in math. They have been trained very well in math. Which is great and not meant to take away from their accomplishments.

I am the poster you responded to.

I am not so sure that some of them are not gifted. There are quite a few who train from 1st grade and do reasonably well. But to do really well, there is some need for something special (since gifted is a very loaded term) in them.

How is this different from say practicing baseball or soccer right from K. Not all of them are gifted but they do really well as the initial advantage cascades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one ever wants to admit this but the AMC is definitely a test you can figure out with practice. Now if a kid is figuring out the tricks on his own that’s talent. I say this as a parent of a child who is great at math, algebra I before 6th, aops student, yada yada yada. IMO it’s all training. I wonder if that’s a more eastern way of looking at high achievement though.

There is a huge difference in the philosophies. Americans love the idea of "natural talent." A more eastern philosophy would celebrate the hard work and resulting achievement much moreso than natural talent. No one ever wants to admit this, but unless you're at the extremely elite levels in math, music, sports, art, or whatever, it's generally all about training rather than natural talent.

Yes, talent is a necessary prerequisite at the highest levels, but training is vastly more important for doing well at the highest level. The kids at or near the top train for hours a day, every day. A significant number of kids could do well on the AMCs just on natural talent with minimal training (obviously not most, but not just the rare few). On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to do really well on the higher levels of competitions without extensive training. But I agree in general that western culture wants to put more value on "natural talent" than training/hard work than they should.

Like Michael Jordan is a natural talent! I dont think he ever went to a practice

There is an eastern European who trained his 3 daughters right from early ages for chess. All 3 ranked in the top 15. Two of them in the top 6 I think.

How is natural talent developed? Something triggers in their early childhood that gives them practice at that particular thing. That advantage cascades through positive reinforcement. We have a study in california in the 60s where some kids were given a test and the top 20% were tracked for decades. The top 20% performed much better than the rest of the class in a significant way. The catch is the test is a trick. The researchers selected the top 20% by random! But being told they are the top 20%, they are better than others, better coaching/advanced classes, etc cascaded into life long advantages. We have many examples like this.

In USA in kids sports, we treat everyone as if they have the potential to do well. But when it comes to math, that attitude goes out. Only some are supposed to do well.

As an Asian, I find this so painful. So many kids with so much potential goes wasted due to this attitude.

I’m the op of this particular thread. I haven’t responded since then. I am in 100% agreement with you.

These kids who have been in AoPS since first grade are not gifted in math. They have been trained very well in math. Which is great and not meant to take away from their accomplishments.

Lol, I see you've been drinking the gifted Kool-Aid. Going by your argument, Christopher Langan and other gifted profiteers would have been putting mankind on Mars instead of living on a ranch

Here's a pro tip: There are a LOT more gifted kids in the math trained group than in the untrained group. Self-selection, akin to sports, or any other skill. You aren't born gifted in a skill, it takes practice to become very good at it. And you choose to practice because you are naturally drawn to it.

[Anonymous]

There are a LOT more kids taking AMC practice classes or participating in math contests than there are kids who are earning Honor Roll. It's not simply training. Like everything, excellence = training + talent. Kids who have just the training end up with pretty underwhelming results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a LOT more kids taking AMC practice classes or participating in math contests than there are kids who are earning Honor Roll. It's not simply training. Like everything, excellence = training + talent. Kids who have just the training end up with pretty underwhelming results.

I think you're confusing talent with motivation. Kids with training and motivation can go very far in mathematics, among other things. Also, like all skills, reaching the top of the pyramid is exponentially harder than reaching a lower level; it's all relative so what you're describing always occurs at some point; clearly more talent is also needed to reach the top (in fact every ingredient is needed, including lots of luck!)

I find it really disingenuous for many people in these threads to make the absolutely absurd claim that kids need talent when they are young and have not even had a chance to try something. Kids are not missing talent, they are mostly missing training and motivation. In the former it's because they don't have access or money to get quality training, and/or may not even be aware it exists, and in the latter, because they are not interested either due to overparenting pressure, or they have motivation for other interests they want to spend their time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a LOT more kids taking AMC practice classes or participating in math contests than there are kids who are earning Honor Roll. It's not simply training. Like everything, excellence = training + talent. Kids who have just the training end up with pretty underwhelming results.

Gag me. It’s not talent. It’s a lot of hard work and usually some kind of pressure. Either internal or external— to be competitive. It’s training. These are kids under the age of 14. We aren’t able to see talent in math yet at this level when it’s all about exposure. Yes, some of them may go on to major in math. But a 25 on the freaking amc 8 is not proof or predictive of talent or some innate giftedness in math. Look, this is a world I’m very familiar with. And even if this is only my opinion I am speaking from a lot of experience. I can’t speak with authority on much, but this I can.

And I don’t want to take anything away from these kids and what they do. I just cannot stand parents thinking that their kid is particularly talented just because they’ve been spoon fed advanced math from a very early age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a LOT more kids taking AMC practice classes or participating in math contests than there are kids who are earning Honor Roll. It's not simply training. Like everything, excellence = training + talent. Kids who have just the training end up with pretty underwhelming results.

Gag me. It’s not talent. It’s a lot of hard work and usually some kind of pressure. Either internal or external— to be competitive. It’s training. These are kids under the age of 14. We aren’t able to see talent in math yet at this level when it’s all about exposure. Yes, some of them may go on to major in math. But a 25 on the freaking amc 8 is not proof or predictive of talent or some innate giftedness in math. Look, this is a world I’m very familiar with. And even if this is only my opinion I am speaking from a lot of experience. I can’t speak with authority on much, but this I can.

And I don’t want to take anything away from these kids and what they do. I just cannot stand parents thinking that their kid is particularly talented just because they’ve been spoon fed advanced math from a very early age.

AMC 8 might be a baby step, but doing very well is still an accomplishment. I would not consider it insignificant at all, especially as it's more difficult than the SAT which effectively puts kids who get near perfect on the exam at the level of a perfect math score on the SAT, in middle school. But more importantly, AMC 8 is a popular path (Mathcounts being the other even more popular choice) for building the basic skills needed to crack the significantly more difficult high school math competition scene. Also, I'll argue your notion that one can judge talent. Talent at a particular skill is slowly built up via a combination of training (i.e effective learning), and motivation. It's a positive reinforcement cycle; more training leads to more skill/talent, leads to more motivation to do more training, etc. All the morons on these threads that talk all day about giftedness and innate talent have no clue what it really takes to succeed in these competitions (not just in math but literally any other high ceiling skill).

[Anonymous]

kusu