Are successes at the IMO a reliable and objective measure of the skills you need?
Well, of course, this is a major filter for intelligence, creativity and plain math “basic front kick” proficiency. However, you also exclude lots and lots of people who may possess the necessary skills but did not choose to enter IMO, were not aware of it, had other personal commitments or simply procrastinated too much etc. Also, the skills IMO medalists have acquired so far are in no way a guarantee that more skills will follow, and may be the result of good teachers or enthusiastic parents. Let me present you some weak evidence, behold, a personal anecdote!
On behalf of my chemistry teacher and owed to my school’s policy in general, I entered one of these sciency olympiads a while ago. I procrastinated over the first round, which was a homework assignment, got it in just in time not quite completed, but was allowed to the next round. From there on, I made it to the national team and won a medal at the international competition. Looking back on what I did back then, I’d say the questions were quite easy, not at a level I’d call requiring serious skill. Of course I’ve continued to learn much since then, but it could’ve gone another way. I would not say such medal winners are overly altruistic or more determined to their cause than others are (the two of my teammates that I know about are now studying medicine, “to make money” as they told me).
I’d conclude that if you want bright mathematicians, you might be well off taking IMO medalists. But if you want people who are also trustworthy, altruistic and deeply committed to AGI, let alone especially rational, you should probably widen the filter for intelligence and math skills (if IMO medals are a good measure of this) a lot. Perhaps ask Mensa, take applications and filter from those, reach out to the best 1% on some college entry test or something. Just wild, uneducated guesses. But focussing on IMO medalists, which should give you less than 500 potential candidates a year, doesn’t sound like a good strategy. More so since those people are approached not only by you but also by quite a few companies.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you mean with “at medal-winning level”, but since you’re doing this SPARC camp and I can’t think of another way of attracting such people, I assumed you were reaching out to people who actually compete.
More so since those people are approached not only by you but also by quite a few companies.
Unless we have different understandings of what it means to be ‘approached’ this statement clashes quite strongly with my experience in the year since I won my IMO silver.
Another data point: I have a gold IMO medal (only 4 people in my country ever had it), and in the following 20 years I never had a phone call or an e-mail saying: “We have this project where we need math talents, and I saw your name online, so if you are interested I would like to tell you more details.”
No one cares. Seems to me the only predictor companies use is: “Did you do the same kind of work at some previous company? How many years?” and then the greater number wins. (Which effectively means that one is paid for their age and their ability to pick the right technology when they finish university and stick with it. Kinda depressing.)
EDIT: As a sidenote, I did not use my math skills significantly since university, so in my case the IMO medal is probably not so good predictor now.
No one cares. Seems to me the only predictor companies use is: “Did you do the same kind of work at some previous company? How many years?” and then the greater number wins. (Which effectively means that one is paid for their age and their ability to pick the right technology when they finish university and stick with it. Kinda depressing.)
Cynic. You’re neglecting the influence of a pretty face, good clothes, and a bit of charm!
I have been pretty continuously approached throughout my four years of undergrad. Probably this also has a good deal to do with social connections formed during contest participation, not just the contest performance itself.
Are successes at the IMO a reliable and objective measure of the skills you need?
Well, of course, this is a major filter for intelligence, creativity and plain math “basic front kick” proficiency. However, you also exclude lots and lots of people who may possess the necessary skills but did not choose to enter IMO, were not aware of it, had other personal commitments or simply procrastinated too much etc. Also, the skills IMO medalists have acquired so far are in no way a guarantee that more skills will follow, and may be the result of good teachers or enthusiastic parents. Let me present you some weak evidence, behold, a personal anecdote!
On behalf of my chemistry teacher and owed to my school’s policy in general, I entered one of these sciency olympiads a while ago. I procrastinated over the first round, which was a homework assignment, got it in just in time not quite completed, but was allowed to the next round. From there on, I made it to the national team and won a medal at the international competition. Looking back on what I did back then, I’d say the questions were quite easy, not at a level I’d call requiring serious skill. Of course I’ve continued to learn much since then, but it could’ve gone another way. I would not say such medal winners are overly altruistic or more determined to their cause than others are (the two of my teammates that I know about are now studying medicine, “to make money” as they told me).
I’d conclude that if you want bright mathematicians, you might be well off taking IMO medalists. But if you want people who are also trustworthy, altruistic and deeply committed to AGI, let alone especially rational, you should probably widen the filter for intelligence and math skills (if IMO medals are a good measure of this) a lot. Perhaps ask Mensa, take applications and filter from those, reach out to the best 1% on some college entry test or something. Just wild, uneducated guesses. But focussing on IMO medalists, which should give you less than 500 potential candidates a year, doesn’t sound like a good strategy. More so since those people are approached not only by you but also by quite a few companies.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you mean with “at medal-winning level”, but since you’re doing this SPARC camp and I can’t think of another way of attracting such people, I assumed you were reaching out to people who actually compete.
Unless we have different understandings of what it means to be ‘approached’ this statement clashes quite strongly with my experience in the year since I won my IMO silver.
Another data point: I have a gold IMO medal (only 4 people in my country ever had it), and in the following 20 years I never had a phone call or an e-mail saying: “We have this project where we need math talents, and I saw your name online, so if you are interested I would like to tell you more details.”
No one cares. Seems to me the only predictor companies use is: “Did you do the same kind of work at some previous company? How many years?” and then the greater number wins. (Which effectively means that one is paid for their age and their ability to pick the right technology when they finish university and stick with it. Kinda depressing.)
EDIT: As a sidenote, I did not use my math skills significantly since university, so in my case the IMO medal is probably not so good predictor now.
Cynic. You’re neglecting the influence of a pretty face, good clothes, and a bit of charm!
I’m an IOI silver medalist and have been approached many times by companies, mostly quantitative finance / tech start ups.
Interesting. If I may ask, how many of those were within the first year?
I have been pretty continuously approached throughout my four years of undergrad. Probably this also has a good deal to do with social connections formed during contest participation, not just the contest performance itself.
I said “the IMO medal-winning level.”
IMO performance isn’t the only metric which strongly predicts elite math ability.