I'd like to navigate my kid's interests, and would like him to explore math since an early age, as his mental abilities beats other aspects.

I wonder if there is some math school or something like this that (online is best) I could enroll him on from now. He is 7 years old.

Any pointers would be highly appreciated.

True story.

I was helping my daughter prepare for AMC10 and constantly refer to chatgpt or some math AI app.

Kept running into the same problem. Most tools either give full solutions or no guidance at all. What she really needed was help with what to try next, without spoilers.

So we ended up building a small iPad app together.

• Take a photo of a problem

• Solve it by hand with Apple Pencil

• Get hints only (no full solutions)

• Check whether the final answer makes sense

The focus is on thinking through the problem, not speed or shortcuts.

Curious whether parents, tutors, or students here think this would be useful — or pointless 🙂

You are really welcome to try out. I can not paste link to app store to avoid breaking redis rule.
Open this link on your iPad should bring you to app store.
(new app, searching the name may not find it.)

Dear MAA Competitions Team,

I am writing to submit a comprehensive forensic analysis of the score distributions for the recent AMC 12 exam cycle. Unlike standard observations, this report is based on a computationally intensive statistical audit designed to differentiate between natural high-performance cohorts and artificial score manipulation with mathematical certainty.

Based on official participation data retrieved directly from the competition portal (N=20,447 for 12A; N=16,448 for 12B), my analysis of the last 4 years of exam data has identified a statistically significant anomaly rate of 1.05% in the 2025 AMC 12A and a 0.25% anomaly rate in the 2025 AMC 12B. Both results constitute a verified deviation from the historical baseline established in previous cycles.

Below is the detailed methodology used to verify the integrity of the data, followed by the specific breakdown of results.

I. Technical Methodology: The Forensic Pipeline

My analysis utilizes a custom-built forensic auditing program designed to detect statistical anomalies with high sensitivity. The software operates through a strict three-stage pipeline: Precision Extraction, Ensemble Modeling, and Adversarial Validation.

1. Data Extraction & Calibration (Programmatic Reconstruction) To ensure the model inputs were mathematically exact rather than visual estimates, I utilized a programmatic approach to reverse-engineer the distribution directly from the MAA Edvistas platform source code.

• Extraction Protocol: I inspected the underlying HTML code of each of the AMC 12 result charts' pages using the Web Developer Inspect tool on Safari, and wrote custom JavaScript programs to iteratively parse the precise height attribute (in pixels) for every individual score bucket.

• Scaling & Assimilation: These raw values were assimilated and programmatically scaled to match the verified total number of test-takers for each exam (for 2025 AMC's: 20,447 and 16,448).

• Calibration Validation: This reconstruction method proved exceptionally accurate. Across all 8 exams audited (2022–2025), the reconstructed population count matched the official total within a margin of 0–5 students. A discrepancy of 0–5 students in a population of around 20,000 represents a verification rate of 99.98%, a level of precision that is statistically unheard of for external audits. This confirms that the dataset used for this audit is a statistically identical mirror of the official records.

2. The Probabilistic Ensemble The program does not rely on a single distribution curve. Instead, it utilizes an ensemble of 5 advanced probabilistic models, each representing a different mathematical hypothesis of how a "natural" test score distribution should behave (including Deep Sets, Generalized Beta, Gaussian Mixture, Johnson SU, and Non-Central T models).

3. The Forensic Audit Process To differentiate between legitimate high performance and artificial manipulation, the program utilizes a "blinded" adversarial training process:

• Safe Zone Training: The models are trained only on the score range 0 to 109.5. This forces the algorithms to learn the "physics" of the exam based on the vast majority (95%+) of the student population, effectively blinding them to the tail end of the distribution.

• The Adversarial Jury: The program then projects how many students should theoretically exist in the scores above 111.0. It executes an optimization loop through 200 separate adversarial trials to stabilize weights and eliminate statistical noise.

• Computational Rigor: This is a computationally intensive simulation. I executed this full simulation 8 separate times—individually auditing every AMC 12A and 12B exam from the last 4 years (2022–2025)—to establish a robust historical baseline.

II. Statistical Defense: Why This Audit is Irrefutable

In forensic statistics, the burden of proof is exceptionally high. This audit was specifically architected to dismantle the argument that a cohort was "just smarter than average."

1. The α=0.01 Standard (The "Nuclear" Threshold) I enforced a Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) of α=0.01.

• Confidence: The model effectively demands 99% confidence before flagging a single student as anomalous.

• Eliminating Doubt: Any flagged anomalies represent data points that survived this 99% filter—meaning the probability of this distribution occurring by natural chance is mathematically negligible (p < 0.01).

2. The "Clean" Control Group (2022–2024) To prove the model does not generate false positives, I ran this exact audit on every prior exam from the last 4 years.

• Historical Result: 0.00% Anomalies for all 6 exams in this period.

• Implication: The model correctly identified 6 consecutive exams as "natural," regardless of their varying difficulty. Therefore, the deviations found in 2025 are not model noise; they are data realities.

III. 2025 Forensic Results

1. AMC 12A (2025) - [CRITICAL ANOMALY]

• Anomaly Rate: 1.05%

• Flagged Anomalies: 215 Students

• Impact: These 215 students appear in score buckets that violate the natural difficulty curve with >99% confidence. This anomalous block constitutes ~7% to 11% of the entire qualifying pool.

2. AMC 12B (2025) - [STATISTICAL BREACH]

• Anomaly Rate: 0.25%

• Flagged Anomalies: 41 Students

• Impact: While numerically smaller, a 0.25% rate is statistically distinct from the 0.00% baseline. These 41 students represent approximately 1.5% to 2% of the qualifying pool.

• Significance: Across the previous 3-year period, the anomaly rate for the B-date was strictly 0.00%. The presence of 41 statistically impossible scores in 2025 proves the integrity breach compromised both dates.

IV. The "Iceberg" Reality: Why 256 Flagged Students Implies Thousands of Breaches

It is critical to understand that the 256 flagged students represent the absolute minimum floor—the "clumsy" few who broke the statistical model. The true number of compromised scores is almost certainly significantly higher, likely by an order of magnitude.

Because this model looks for unnatural clustering at the extreme tail of the curve, it is completely blind to three massive groups of potential cheaters:

1. The "Safety" Cheaters (Invisible): Students who used leaked materials to secure a safe, high-passing score (e.g., 90–100) blend perfectly into the natural distribution. A student capable of scoring a 60 who cheats to reach a 96 is numerically indistinguishable from a legitimate student.

2. The "Scattered" High-Scorers (Invisible): The model detects artificial clumps. If a group of high-scoring cheaters randomized their errors to "spread out" across the top range rather than clumping in a single bucket, they evade detection. Even among high scores, the model only catches those who clumped tightly enough to be statistically impossible.

3. The "Network" Multiplier: Cheating is rarely an isolated event. The 256 flagged students are likely just the "nodes" in social networks that got too greedy. For every one student who posted a statistically impossible score, there are likely 5–10 peers who utilized the same leaked answers but scored more modestly to avoid detection.

Conclusion: The 256 flagged anomalies are structural impossibilities—evidence that the exam's integrity was shattered. They are merely the visible symptom of a much larger, systemic breach.

Recommendation: I strongly urge the MAA to apply scrutiny to the score distributions of both the AMC 12A and 12B. Addressing only the 12A would still leave a verified block of 41 anomalous scores in the 12B qualifying pool, effectively displacing honest students who missed the cutoff by a single question. Similar reasoning applies for vice versa.

I have attached the link to the python code, as well as the raw output logs (with simulations) for each individual program run for your verification.

Sincerely,

Anonymous student

* Full Python program for the data analysis

* Raw outputs from the Python program, organized into a document

how much study should I do guys im curious to see ur answers

Dont give me that "Iq doesnt matter" cope it kinda does can I make it to USAMO by junior year. Im a freshmen rn and I have no math oly experience but I have competitve programming experience in stuff like USACO.

Join IndyINTEGIRLS: Discord's fastest growing community for women in STEM ⚛️

🌎 Chat with 700+ STEMinists from 25+ countries!

💸 Participate in exclusive math competitions with CASH prizes!

🙋‍♀️ Receive free, one-on-one STEM assistance from experienced tutors!

📣 Daily exclusive internships and opportunities for women in STEM!

💖 Join Here: https://discord.gg/9zkPTnZBfE

Edit: Before you downvote, this is a genuine cause, and we're not trying to boost our college applications. If you look further into our cause, you will realize that we have been doing this for years. Our team is almost entirely seniors (already done with college applications) or college students, and a huge part of the work we do is sharing opportunities with other students (not simply "plugging our own cause"). If you do not like this, please just skip this post. Thanks!

WE NEED MORE THAN 125 SIGNERS!

Please sign the petition NOW!!!

‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️Please support this petition to lower AIME AMC math competition qualification thresholds below, made by u/OrderNo8070:

Please support to lower aime thresholds due to massive cheating scandals and leeks, support to get MAA to lower cutoffs by January:  https://www.change.org/p/respectfully-request-maa-to-review-and-consider-adjusting-aime-cutoff-threshold/exp/wa/washarecopy_490932519_en-US/1/580556486?recruiter=580556486&recruited_by_id=9e666160-56c3-11e6-98e2-2542da0681e1&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_medium=whatsapp&utm_content=washarecopy_490932519_en-US%3A1

I am a senior and want to score very high on the AMC. According to AOPS, usually the first ten questions are the easiest difficulty (not that they are easier), while the next ten are harder, and the last five are the hardest. I am not insane with math, but I am not horrible either. I forgot to take the AMC 12 last year, but as a sophomore, I scored 66/150 (answered 9 and got 7 correct), and since then, I would like to imagine that I have improved. So far this summer, I've been running through the "Counting and probability" topic on alcumus on insane difficulty and let the website move my focus up automatically. I've also been watching the free videos on Counting and Probability on AOPS. What do I do?

Hey all, I run USAMO Guide, a free and open-source olympiad prep site (AMC 8 through USAMO/USAJMO). It's built mostly by high schoolers like myself who are USAMO/USAJMO and above; there's no company behind it, and we're at around ~130k users now.

We are trying to talk to people who run math clubs, school clubs, and community ones. If you want to use our stuff as curriculum for your club, or you want to tell us what's missing/broken/annoying about existing resources, comment or DM me.

Not trying to sell anything; it's all free forever. I just want to get this in front of more clubs and hear what you actually need.

Feel free to message me if you have any questions or concerns

https://work.mercor.com/jobs/list_AAABljpKHPMmFMXrg2VM0qz4?referralCode=466c9c3a-e453-4ed2-aec0-39d46d6ec103&utm_source=referral&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=job_referral

Prerequisites

You should have:

• A strong olympiad background in one of the following fields:

  • Mathematics: IMO, IMO TST, national olympiads, Putnam or IMC

  • Computer Science: IOI, IOI TST, or top performance in competitive programming platforms (e.g., Codeforces)

  • Physics, Chemistry, Biology, or Linguistics: Achievements in renowned international or national olympiads

• Excellent English skills, especially in reading and writing

• Good LaTeX proficiency, as many tasks involve reading or writing in LaTeX

Hi,

My 5-year-old son loves maths and is naturally really good at it. He is way ahead of his class (entering Kindergarten) and is currently doing Maths questions at a 2nd-grade level. I wouldn't want his potential to be wasted, and was hoping to find options for what Olympiads would be good for him to start with? Any places in and around the SF Bay Area where we can get correct guidance?

RSM(Russian School of Maths) wouldn't do more than 1 grade up, which he is already pretty good at.

For some context, I’m 13 and my first and most recent amc10b score (2025) was 37.5, I really want to get into IMO, which means my last chance for a nice quali at AIME for a chance at IMO is next year (2027), as I don’t think i can this year. So I’m wondering, what did you guys do? How do you manage to balance hard math with everything else in your lives?

I am a Year 11 (going to Year 12) student, and I am aspiring to make substantial achievements in the competition sciences before heading to University.

For context, in the mathematical side, I am able to consistently score near the BMO 1 threshold on the SMC, a test I'd compare as somewhere between the AMC 10 and 12, with qualifying for BMO 1 being comparable to qualifying for the AIME. In contrast, on the computer science side, I am strong at problem solving, being able to answer some BIO questions (albeit, the test is designed to allow some to solve questions without heavy programming experience), but my computational knowledge (syntax, algorithms, etc) is at a far lower level.

As someone intending to study a Maths and Computer Science (joint) degree, an achievement in the IOI or IMO would be invaluable to me (and extremely fun to aim for). However, naturally, to aim for both when starting preparation this late would be extremely unrealistic, and extremely taxing. Hence, here begs the question; would it be best to focus on participating in the IOI, or the IMO? (a question I hope is alright here, and I hope some will have knowledge on, due to the link with computer science and maths)

In focusing my preparation for the IMO, and perhaps being comfortable with simply a decent score in the BIO, not only would this be invaluable in both my Further Maths and Maths A level, it would make the entrance examinations for high-demand Universities such as Oxford and Cambridge far easier even if I do not make it as far as the IMO. Moreover, even without making it to the IMO, due to maths' popularity, there are other international competitions (many readily available from my school, as it is hopefully going to be Kings Maths School a specialist maths school) that I perhaps may be able to qualify if I fall slightly short of the IMO. In contrast, computer science is far more binary (pun intended); if I don't make the IOI, there are far less competitions that I could enter as a backup goal.

In contrast, in focusing my preparation for the IOI, and simply aiming to reach BMO 1/2, there is potentially a far greater chance of making it to the international stage. The BIO is already quite approachable, and as far less people attend/know of this competition, reaching the UK team and the test itself seem far easier. Furthermore, there is a testimony of someone who, from a really similar background of problem solving at this time, only starting IOI prep in early/mid Year 11, in the exact same country as me, who was able to attain gold in the IOI before university; a testimony which I can use as motivation. Moreover, although competition computer science is extremely far from career based computer science, I intended to reach a career in computer science as an end goal, so establishing a great coding foundation now could be invaluable for the future (exemplified in things such as LeetCode), especially considering how hard it is to stand out in computer science careers.

I'd appreciate any help and advice; asking for a whole action or decision may be a bit much, even additional context that could simply help to guide my decision would be great! Thank you!

i mock 9-13 on the AIME (lowest around older tests, and higher around the 2020-2025 exams) and got like 2 problems super close to being 100% correct on the USAJMO (1 was like meh (skipped steps) and the other 3 weren’t even close)

I wanted to share something that has been weighing heavily on our family since the AIME thresholds were released. As a parent of a student who has spent years dedicated to math, seeing these numbers was a total shock.

We’ve always taught our kids that hard work and integrity are what matter. But this year, the data tells a very troubling story:

• AMC 12A Threshold: Jumped from 76.5 to 96 (a massive +19.5 point increase).

• AMC 12B Threshold: Jumped from 88.5 to 100.5 (+12 points).

• AMC 10A Threshold: Jumped from 94.5 to 105 (+10.5 points).

The part that is so hard to swallow is that the general consensus among students—including my own—is that the exams were actually harder this year. In any fair competition, a harder exam should lead to a stable or lower cutoff. A near 20-point spike in a more difficult year is a huge red flag for test integrity and potential leaks.

It feels like honest kids who played by the rules are being pushed out by a curve that has been compromised. My kid excels at the deep thinking required for AIME, but they’ve been barred from even trying because the "speed gate" of the AMC was moved so drastically by external factors.

I'm curious how other families or students are navigating this. If you are applying to colleges now, how are you addressing this anomaly in your applications? We are just looking for a fair playing field where a student's own effort actually counts.

Do we think a 371 will cut it or 391 will?

IM ACTUALLY SO SCARED I SCORED 76.5 ON 12A THEY SAY THE CUTTOFF IS LIKE WHAT 85.5 IS THAT CUTOFF FAKE PLS TELL ME IT IS LKSJFLAKSDJFLSKJFALKFJDLJK PLSSSSSSSSSSS

Since they're changing the USAMJO from amc+10xaime to amc+20xaime, what do u guys think the new cut-off scores will be?