MIT decisions out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 'math competition industry' thing reminds me of Spelling Bee. My kid went to national one and lo and behold all the top placers were in like a hidden Spelling Bee Industrial Complex nobody knew about.

This is (while frustrating in the moment I am sure) also very amusing. I am trying to picture what that would look like: a kid practicing spelling 24-7. Thank you for posting, I needed the humor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 'math competition industry' thing reminds me of Spelling Bee. My kid went to national one and lo and behold all the top placers were in like a hidden Spelling Bee Industrial Complex nobody knew about.

Yeah, just like with any extracurricular. The youth sports industrial complex in this country dwarfs anything you might see with spelling bee or math competition. But I don’t see parents whining about the fact that you have to start your kids in sports at the age of 5, go to summer camps, hire expensive private coaches and do insane travel clubs to have a chance to win awards/get recruited.

[Anonymous]

At least 2 TJ students got accepted. One IMO Gold and one IPhO USA team.

[Anonymous]

Ok, so here’s the question. My kid is at private. Could have easily taken calc as freshman or sophomore but school would not permit it. Self studied for fun anyway. But is there any kid who gets into MIT who is NOT a recruited athlete or is NOT on IMO or such team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'math competition industry' thing reminds me of Spelling Bee. My kid went to national one and lo and behold all the top placers were in like a hidden Spelling Bee Industrial Complex nobody knew about.

Yeah, just like with any extracurricular. The youth sports industrial complex in this country dwarfs anything you might see with spelling bee or math competition. But I don’t see parents whining about the fact that you have to start your kids in sports at the age of 5, go to summer camps, hire expensive private coaches and do insane travel clubs to have a chance to win awards/get recruited.

This is funny because DCUM is full of people whining about just that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While it is true that kids who make it to that level are insanely talented at math, I truly hate the cottage industry it has built around contest math. Kids in early elementary school taking advanced geometry at AOPS… or functions. At this point, if you don’t start those classes at an early age, you really won’t do very well on the AMCs. Someone will point out some outliers and sure, maybe they exist, but not many of them… and the pressure and competition are absurd. At least in the DMV.

Talent+ oodles of proper training > extraordinary talent+ shoddy training

Sounds like soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so here’s the question. My kid is at private. Could have easily taken calc as freshman or sophomore but school would not permit it. Self studied for fun anyway. But is there any kid who gets into MIT who is NOT a recruited athlete or is NOT on IMO or such team?

Yes, I know such a kid. But he was from a Title I high school. I kind of get the impression that nearly everyone at MIT checks some kind of box—athlete is probably the biggest one, but also geographic/economic diversity, first gen, etc.

To me the big takeaway is that there’s a lot of MIT-caliber students doing undergrad elsewhere (and in fact I believe MIT takes almost all its grad students from other schools, they don’t want students to do undergrad and grad at MIT).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT AOs are not myopic. They want admits who will graduate. MIT has a fairly broad range of required courses for everyone. A one trick pony math kid who can't read literature, write essays, take 3 nonmajor science courses is not what they want. Sure sime kids take economics so they can have mathy "humanities" but even so they need to absorb principles.

PP, I understand what you’re saying and largely agree, though I suspect you’ll get a lot of pushback from people with more one-dimensional thinking. I’d like to point out that the main reasons people care so much about MIT—especially Asian immigrants and middle- or lower-middle-class families with academically strong children—are:

1. MIT does not consider legacy status.
2. While MIT does recruit athletes, it rigorously evaluates academic ability; athletic talent alone is not enough for admission.

I believe most of the top schools in the US look broader intelligences than just math.

As to 2, there is a bar but you don’t know what percentage of applicants cross over that bar - it could be much much higher than the admitted percentage. In that case the athlete advantage is significant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT AOs are not myopic. They want admits who will graduate. MIT has a fairly broad range of required courses for everyone. A one trick pony math kid who can't read literature, write essays, take 3 nonmajor science courses is not what they want. Sure sime kids take economics so they can have mathy "humanities" but even so they need to absorb principles.

PP, I understand what you’re saying and largely agree, though I suspect you’ll get a lot of pushback from people with more one-dimensional thinking. I’d like to point out that the main reasons people care so much about MIT—especially Asian immigrants and middle- or lower-middle-class families with academically strong children—are:

1. MIT does not consider legacy status.
2. While MIT does recruit athletes, it rigorously evaluates academic ability; athletic talent alone is not enough for admission.

I believe most of the top schools in the US look broader intelligences than just math.

As to 2, there is a bar but you don’t know what percentage of applicants cross over that bar - it could be much much higher than the admitted percentage. In that case the athlete advantage is significant

It is. We know that most of them would not get in without being an athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so here’s the question. My kid is at private. Could have easily taken calc as freshman or sophomore but school would not permit it. Self studied for fun anyway. But is there any kid who gets into MIT who is NOT a recruited athlete or is NOT on IMO or such team?

Yes, I know such a kid. But he was from a Title I high school. I kind of get the impression that nearly everyone at MIT checks some kind of box—athlete is probably the biggest one, but also geographic/economic diversity, first gen, etc.

To me the big takeaway is that there’s a lot of MIT-caliber students doing undergrad elsewhere (and in fact I believe MIT takes almost all its grad students from other schools, they don’t want students to do undergrad and grad at MIT).

This is true. MIT has a significant issue with the intense competition to get in that has created an unhealthy cohort. If you go on a tour, take a look around to see who's there on campus. Those students will get good jobs but only a handful will really do anything special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC's friend got in. OK grades but a MOPper apparently.

Top 50 in the US is tremendously impressive, good for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so here’s the question. My kid is at private. Could have easily taken calc as freshman or sophomore but school would not permit it. Self studied for fun anyway. But is there any kid who gets into MIT who is NOT a recruited athlete or is NOT on IMO or such team?

Yes, I know such a kid. But he was from a Title I high school. I kind of get the impression that nearly everyone at MIT checks some kind of box—athlete is probably the biggest one, but also geographic/economic diversity, first gen, etc.

To me the big takeaway is that there’s a lot of MIT-caliber students doing undergrad elsewhere (and in fact I believe MIT takes almost all its grad students from other schools, they don’t want students to do undergrad and grad at MIT).

Yes, PP here with a current freshman at MIT. I agree with this. MIT does not have the monopoly on "MIT-caliber" students.

My kid did self study, but no competitions (we parents aren't math people and didn't even know competitive math was a thing until senior year). I have no idea if the self study made a difference in getting the acceptance, but my kid enjoyed it (MIT online courses). The MIT online courses are very inexpensive so if your kid is interested, I recommend supporting them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'math competition industry' thing reminds me of Spelling Bee. My kid went to national one and lo and behold all the top placers were in like a hidden Spelling Bee Industrial Complex nobody knew about.

This is (while frustrating in the moment I am sure) also very amusing. I am trying to picture what that would look like: a kid practicing spelling 24-7. Thank you for posting, I needed the humor.

There was a good documentary about this maybe 15 years ago. The film at least showcased spelling bee contestants from a diverse array of backgrounds, and at least then, it was a super time-intensive process, and usually involved a lot of parental pressure/support, but didn't seem to be $$$ necessarily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC's friend got in. OK grades but a MOPper apparently.

Top 50 in the US is tremendously impressive, good for them.

MOP is top
~20 per grade, in a very specific activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'math competition industry' thing reminds me of Spelling Bee. My kid went to national one and lo and behold all the top placers were in like a hidden Spelling Bee Industrial Complex nobody knew about.

Its like the sports industry. We know kids who are training for squash in Egypt and Malaysia. That plus the amount of money one needs to spend on private coaches, traveling to places made us decide not to pursue it. One family in Greenwich built a squash court in their home and had a renowned squash coach as a full time employee (he could not coach other kids).

That's not the same as cheating, though. That's intensive preparation that can be expensive, which some might consider "unfair", but still depends on the talent and effort of the skill of the student.

Indeed, money just tilts the scales. But the rampant cheating on the AMC exams is just that -- cheating. Again, not that important in the big scheme of things but there used to be this lore that MOP qualification meant a ticket to MIT. Certainly not the case any more.

Yeah, it seems like this ruins it for the honest math kids who can no longer use achievement in these contests as a reliable signal.

It's a reliable signal for "willing to do extracurricular math ". That's all it ever was