Talk:William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition

message: Problems posed are elementary, usually requiring no knowledge of mathematics beyond second-year calculus, but will completely stump anyone whose knowledge is mere rote.
But could also completely stump someone whose knowledge is more than rote. (I've never taken the Putnam, so this isn't sour grapes. But I know more than a few people who took the Putnam exam a few times and scored ZERO or very close to zero every time, yet went on to complete the Ph.d. and have perfectly successful careers as research mathematicians. And although I have no concrete data, I'm sure there are some who do well on the exam and yet fail in graduate school for whatever reason.) Of course, creativity and insight are very helpful with these kinds of contests, and it's no surprise many super-researchers have done well on them, but I think we should try to avoid giving the impression that the ability to do well on these kinds of competitions is some indicator of the ability to do research. In fact, doing research in math is a much different activity than taking a 6-hour test, and the types of skills involved in working on research over months and years on a problem is different than coming up with a clever solution on the spot in 2 hours. I don't mean to say that many of the Putnam problems aren't fascinating or enjoyable, (many are), but many of the solutions also seem to me to be based on ad-hoc "tricks" and the problems often seem to be isolated and not related to any overarching mathematical concerns.
I don't mean to sound like a grouch, this is just some comments. I realize I have a sort of bias against math "competitions" in general -- the idea that math is a "competition" with winners and losers seems antithetical to the spirit of mathematics to me. Revolver
: This isn't the place for "some comments". If you have anything to contribute to the article, please do so. -- 71.102.133.72 (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly doubt that anyone believes this. --24.6.6.121 (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Difficulty of and skills needed on the Putnam

message: An edit over the last day added "width=100%" to both tables.  Why?  I think this is a bad idea:
1. There's no reason to have the two tables in this article the same width, whatever width that may be, because they're different tables.  It would be something different if we had "winners 1953-1990" and "1990-2003," in which case you would want the two tables to match.  But they're completely different tables.
2. Let the user's browser decide.  If someone has a 2000-pixel wide screen with tiny text, you're going to change
FirstName LastNameYear, Year, Year, Year
to
FirstName LastNameYear, Year, Year, Year
Which is much harder to read in a long table, like we have.
Perhaps let's compromise on centering both tables, but leaving them at their natural, browser-determined width. -Rjyanco 11:04, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Table width

message: Should there perhaps be a separate article "Putnam Exam: High Scoring Teams and Indivduals," to which the tables can be removed? This page can remain the basic description. (This is in line with many other parts of the wikipedia where lists have their own separate page.) Doops 23:23, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the article

message: Did anyone take the 2004 Putnam today? What did you think of it? Jonpin 03:27, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
:This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Temperalxy 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, way to slam the stable door nearly 35 months after the horses have left. Doops |  talk 02:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a reasonable comment that can educate others who might be inclined to do something similar. -- 71.102.133.72 (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone take it? 

message: is this only for american students? --euyyn (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall it being American and Canadian only.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  american only? 

message: The intro has the line, "William Lowell Putnam, who, while alive, was an advocate of intercollegiate intellectual competition.
Surely the 'while alive' is unnecessary?  [How could he have been an advocate while dead?]  Seems to me that the the past tense (...was...) is enough.
Thanks, --g.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.181.62 (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It works ok for me since it's in the context that Elizabeth established the award after William was dead. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction. 

message: I was unable to verify the inclusion of Tel-Aviv University as an exception to the American/Canadian eligibility rule, so I have temporarily removed this statement. Does anyone know about this matter and/or can provide a citation? Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tel-Aviv ? 

message: I stumbled across this article from the reader-side of things, and was surprised to find only one reference. I'm glad to see that it's not a primary source, but there should really be more. I would hate for this article to be subject to deletion because it's essentially very good. 
So... A simple Google search like this one returns a decent number of usable hits, as would most search engines. I'm sure this competition has been mentioned in offline literature as well. I implore anyone who comes across this article to please try to add to the references, where applicable, and update content as necessary. I'd love to just take care of it myself, but unfortunately just don't have the opportunity right now. However, feel free to contact me with any questions, 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ping 2ReinreB2, I revised the article to include adequate references.--FeralOink (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  - It is better, thank you. I still think more references could be found, but it's at least safe from any deletion-hungry editors. Thanks again for your work! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  - wow, thanks for noticing so quickly! Although I have to fight the urge to be a deletionist editor, I know how important this article subject matter is, and that the quality of the article is good as well, and agree that it would be unfortunate for it to be deleted for lack of references. There are SO many out there for the Putnam Prize. If I find more, I'll drop them in, over time  :o) --FeralOink (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the lack of references 

message: Recent results of the past X years (20?) might be a better sustainable metric compared to an (assumedly) arbitrary year 2000 Bert303 (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choosing a sliding cutoff for rankings on recent results