The Putnam Competition from 1938-2015∗

Joseph A. Gallian

1. INTRODUCTION. The William Lowell Putnam Competition is held annually for the
top undergraduate mathematics students in the United States and Canada. The first Putnam
competition took place in 1938, but its genesis was a math competition held in 1933 between
ten Harvard students and ten students from the United States Military Academy at West Point
[2]. That competition was sponsored by Elizabeth Lowell Putnam in honor of her late husband
William Lowell Putnam, who was a member of the Harvard class of 1882. That competition
went so well that plans were made to have an annual competition in which all interested insti-
tutions could participate. This came about in 1938, when the first official Putnam competition
was sponsored by the Mathematical Association of America. The examination was prepared
and graded by members of the Harvard mathematics department and Harvard students were
excluded the first year. One of the goals for the competition was to identify the very best and
most promising students in mathematics in the country. There were both individual and team
competitions. The questions were drawn from calculus, the theory of equations, differential
equations, and geometry. (The problems are included at the end of this article.) Prizes in the
first few years were $500, $300, and $200 for the top three teams and $50 each for the top
five ranking individuals, who were designated as Putnam Fellows. By the year 1997 the prizes
for the top five teams had risen to $25,000, $20,000, $15,000, $10,000, and $5,000, while team
members of the top five teams received $1,000, $800, $600, $400, and $200, respectively. Each
Fellow received $2,500, those ranking in the next ten1 received $1,000, and those in the next
10 received $250. Moreover, each year one Putnam Fellow receives the William Lowell Putnam
Fellowship for graduate study at Harvard.
The first competition had 163 individuals and 42 teams. The number of participants
exceeded 1,000 for the first time in 1961, when 1,094 individuals and 165 teams took part. In
2011 there were 4440 students representing 572 institutions and 460 teams. All three of these
totals are the highest on record. The number of participants in the 2011 competition alone
exceeds the total number of participants in the first 19 competitions from 1938 through the fall
of 1958. (The competitions were suspended from 1943-1945 because of World War II; in 1958
there were two competitions–one in the spring and one in the fall.) Coincidentally, in both
1980 and 1981 there were exactly 2,043 participants. Through 2015, there have been 144,589
participants. The 1946 contest, coming right after the war, had the lowest participation ever
with just 67 contestants and 14 teams. The Putnam problem committee for the 1946 contest
was George Pólya, Tibor Radó, and Irving Kaplansky. In 2011 there were 163 participants
from MIT alone. That exceeds the total number of participants in each of 1941, 1942, 1946,
∗
This is an updated version of an article published in the American Mathematical Monthly [5] in 2004.
1
Because of ties this is approximate.

1
 2

1947, 1948, and 1949. Table 1 at the end of this article provides the list of the number of
participants in each of the seventy-six competitions through 2015.
In the first twenty-two competitions the number of questions varied from eleven to fourteen,
but beginning with the 23rd competition in 1962, the exams have consisted of a three-hour
morning session and a three-hour afternoon session, each having six questions worth ten points
apiece. Institutions entering teams must designate the three team members before the com-
petition is held. The team score is the sum of the ranks of the three team members. Thus, a
team whose members finish in twenty-first, forty-ninth, and one hundred and second places has
a score of 172. The lower a team’s score, the higher its ranking. This method of team scoring
places great weight on the lowest scoring member of the team since there is much bunching
at lower scores. For example, in 1988 a team member with a score of ten ranked 1496, but a
team member with a score of nine ranked 1686. In 2006 a score of one point generated 1266.5
team points, whereas a score of zero on that exam resulted in 2501 team points. Thus, even
a one point difference in an individual’s score can mean over a thousand points more for the
team.
The fact that the team members are designated in advance and the method of summing the
ranks for team scoring cause some peculiar results on occasion. In 1959, for instance, Harvard
had four Putnam Fellows but finished fourth in the team competition, and in 1966, 1970, 2005,
and 2006 MIT had three Putnam Fellows but did not win the competition. There have been
sixteen competitions in which the winning institution did not have a Putnam Fellow.
One might wonder about the most difficult Putnam problems over the years. By design,
the 5th and 6th problems in each session tend to be more difficult than the others but time
also is a factor with the last two problems. Using data from 1974-2015, the only problems
for which no one in the top 200 received a positive score were A6 on the 1979 exam and B6
on the 2011 exam. These two problems are reproduced in the Appendix II. In 1999 for both
B4 and B5 only a single person in the top 200 (approximately) received a positive score. In
each instance the score was two. In 1980, there was only one person among the top 200 who
received an 8 or more on problems B5 and one person who received a score or 8 or more on
B6. In 1982 no one in the top 200 scored a 7 or more on A6. In 1993 only one person in the
top 200 scored an 8 or more on A6 and only 2 received an 8 or more on B6. In 2011 only one
person in the top 200 scored a positive score on A5 and B6 combined. In 2011 181 people out
of the top 200 left A5 blank. In 2015 the highest score for A5 was 1. There are a few anomalies
such as in 1988 when 59 of the top 200 received 10 points for A6 and 38 received 10 points on
B6. The strangest year was 1974 when only one person in the top 200 received 9 or 10 on B1
and only one received 9 or 10 on B2 but 34 received 9 or 10 on B6.
As to be expected, over the long run, the problems on the Putnam exam have tended to become
more difficult.
2. TEAM PERFORMANCE. By a wide margin, Harvard has the best record in the
Putnam competition. Through 2015, Harvard has won the team competition twenty-nine
times, while its closest rival for team titles, Caltech, has won ten times. MIT is in third place
with nine titles with five of these coming since 2003. Tied for fourth place with four team
titles each are Washington University and the University of Toronto. All four of Toronto’s
team titles occurred in the first six years of the competition. Toronto might have won all of
the first six competitions except for the fact that it chose to disqualify itself in 1939 and 1941
because the Toronto mathematics department had prepared the questions. Harvard is tied
 3

with MIT and Princeton for the most second place finishes (11) and Harvard has the most
third place finishes (13).
Starting with the fifth competition the questions have been prepared by a committee se-
lected from different schools rather than having the department of the winning team of the
previous competition prepare them. This meant that the winner of the previous year would
not have to disqualify itself. Curiously, the Harvard team did not place in the top five in the
first six competitions, but it has placed in the top five in sixty-one of the seventy-six compe-
titions held through 2015. During the first twenty competitions (1938-1959), the New York
institutions Brooklyn College, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Columbia University, and
City College of New York excelled in the team competition and in producing Putnam Fellows.
Caltech’s glory years were the six years 1971-1976 when they won the team competition five
times. Harvard’s longest winning streak was eight years (1985-1992), and its longest stretch
without winning was fifteen years (1967-1981). Excluding Harvard, only twice has the same
institution won three years in a row. That was Caltech in 1971-1973 and MIT in 2013-2015.
Between 1976 and 1986 Washington University won the team title four times and placed second
four times. During that period Wash U had only two Putnam Fellows. Beginning about 1990
Duke University started to recruit the nation’s best high school math students with the same
fervor that they recruit the best high school basketball players. Between 1990 and 2000 Duke
became Harvard’s top rival by winning three times and finishing second to Harvard twice.
With these accomplishments together with its third place finish each year from 2001 to 2005,
Duke’s Putnam team performed as well as its men’s basketball team! After finishing in the
top five twenty-four times and in second place nine times prior to 2006, Princeton won its first
and only team title in 2006 despite having 22 Putnam Fellows.
The only state universities in the U. S. to win the team competition are Michigan State
(three times), and the Universities of California at Davis (once) and at Berkeley (once). The
highest place ever achieved by a liberal arts college was second by Oberlin College in 1972
beating out third place Harvard. That same year Swarthmore finished fourth, ahead of fifth
place MIT. The only tie for first place occurred in 1984 between the University of California
at Davis and Washington University. Amazingly, in 1986, 1987, and 1990 every member of
Harvard’s team was a Putnam Fellow.
A complete list of the top five schools and top five individuals each year can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putnam competition. Table 3 following lists every team that
has placed fifth or higher in at least one competition along with the total number of Putnam
Fellows from each of these institutions. Table 4 is the list of institutions that have had at least
one Putnam Fellow.

3. INDIVIDUAL ACCOLADES. As for producing Putnam Fellows, Harvard is again the

overwhelming winner with 105 versus MIT’s second place sixty-seven. On the other hand,
between 2001 and 2015, MIT out did Harvard in Putnam Fellows thirty-six to eighteen. Har-
vard has had four Putnam Fellows in the same competition on four occasions. MIT had an
unprecedented five Putnam Fellows in 2014 (because of a three-way tie for fourth place there
were six Putnam Fellows in 2014) and four Putnam Fellows in 2013. Oddly, Harvard did
not record its first Putnam Fellow until the sixth competition. Since then the longest pe-
riod in which Harvard did not have a Putnam Fellow is three years and that happened only
once. With the exception of 2004, Harvard has had a Putnam Fellow every year since 1990.
 4

Because of tie scores, in sixteen competitions there have been six Putnam Fellows, while in
1959 a four-way tie for fifth place resulted in eight. Fourteen of the sixteen competitions in
which there were more than five Putnam Fellows have occurred since 1970. Through 2015,
there have been 288 individuals who have been Putnam Fellows for a total of 399, counting
multiplicity. Only eight people—Don Coppersmith, Arthur Rubin, Bjorn Poonen, Ravi Vakil,
Gabriel Carroll, Reid Barton, Daniel Kane, and Brian Lawrence—have been Putnam Fellows
four times. Twenty-two people have been three-time winners: Andrew Gleason, Edward Ka-
plan, Donald J. Newman, James Herreshoff, Samuel Klein, Randall Dougherty, Eric Carlson,
David Ash, Noam Elkies, David Moews, David Grabiner, Kiran Kedlaya, Lenny Ng, J. P.
Grossman, Ciprian Manolescu, Aaron Pixton, Arnav Tripathy, Yufei Zhao, Xiaosheng Mu,
Evan O’Dorney, Zipei Nie, and David Yang.2 Zhao missed being a four-time Fellow by one
point in 2007. In Ash’s fourth attempt at the Putnam in 1984 he finished tied for sixth, just
two points short of being a Putnam Fellow for a fourth time. It should be noted that some of
the three-time winners only took the exam three times. Barton is the only person ever to win
four gold medals in four attempts in the International Mathematical Olympiad for high school
students. Barton also won two gold medals in the International Olympiad in Informatics.
O’Dorney won the U.S. National Spelling Bee.
Through 2015 there have been forty-four people who have been Putnam Fellows exactly
twice. Of the 288 individuals who have been Putnam Fellows 75 (about 26%) were Fellows
more than once. It appears that there have never been two members of the same immediate
family who have been Putnam Fellows. The closest are brothers Doug and Irwin Jungreis.
Doug finished in the top five in 1985 and 1986 and Irwin finished in the second five in 1980 and
1982. The first certain occurrence of a woman finishing in the Honorable Mention or higher
categories was in 1948. In the announcement in the American Mathematical Monthly [7] she
is listed as “M. Djorup (Miss), Ursinus College.” Because many participants use the initials
of their first and middle names (e.g., R. P. Feynman) it is possible that Djorup is not the
first woman to achieve Honorable Mention or better status. The first woman Putnam Fellow
was Ioana Dumitriu from New York University in 1996; the second was Melanie Wood from
Duke in 2002; the third was Ana Caraiani from Princeton in 2003 and 2004. Since the ages
of participants are not noted, there is no way to know who the youngest and oldest people
to win the competition were. Most likely the youngest is Arthur Rubin, who was a winner
in 1970 at age 14. John Tillinghast, David Ash, Noam Elkies and Lenny Ng were Putnam
Fellows at sixteen. The likely oldest winner is Samuel Klein, who was born in 1934 and won
the competitions in 1953, 1959, and 1960. As a group, the five winners of the 2003 competition
have amassed the greatest number of Putnam Fellow designations ever: Gabriel Carroll, Reid
Barton and Daniel Kane won four time, Ana Caraiani won twice, and Ralph Furmaniak won
once.
Unlike the early years of the Putnam competition, in the past twenty-five years or so many
of those who have done exceptionally well in the Putnam competition have participated as high-
school students in problem solving summer training camps in the United States and elsewhere
in preparation for the annual International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO). In recent years,
many of the international students who represented their countries in the IMO have come to
the United States for their undergraduate degrees. As a consequence the winners of Putnam
2
The MAA should create action figures for all the people who were Putnam Fellows three or more times.
 5

competitions now come from many countries. The 2006 Putnam competition illustrates this
well. All five 2006 Putnam winners were IMO gold medal recipients and 12 of the top 26
scorers in competition represented countries other than the United States or Canada in the
IMO. In 2007 five of the six Putnam Fellows were IMO Gold medalists and nine of the top 24
in the Putnam competition represented countries other than the United States or Canada in
the IMO. In 2009 seven of the top 25 in the Putnam competition represented countries other
than the United States or Canada in the IMO while in 2010 there were six in the top 25.
Between 2010 and 2015 all but two Putnam Fellows were IMO Gold medalists.
Over the seventy-six competitions between 1938 and 2015 there have been only four perfect
scores—one in 1987, two in 1988, and one in 2010. Although the top five scorers are always
listed alphabetically, it is known that the 1987 perfect score was achieved by David Moews.
What is amazing about this score is that the 1987 exam was a difficult one. The median score
was one point and twenty-six points put one in the top two hundred (out of 2,170 participants).
In 1987 the second highest score was 108, the third highest score in 1988 was 119, and the
second highest in 2010 was 118. The winners of the 1987 and 1988 competitions rank among
the strongest groups of Putnam Fellows ever. Among them are Bjorn Poonen and Ravi Vakil,
both four-time Putnam Fellows, David Moews and David Grabiner, both three-time Putnam
Fellows, and Mike Reid, a two-time Putnam Fellow. In contrast to the 1988 scores, of the
1,260 contestants in the 1963 competition the highest score was sixty-two.
Two changes were made in 1992 regarding the recognition of individuals. In previous
competitions the announcements of winners alphabetically identified the top ten as the five
highest ranking participants and the next five highest. The next group of 30-35 highest ranking
people was designated “Honorable Mention.” In 1992 the announcement of the results put the
top 25 into four categories: the five highest ranking individuals, the next five highest, the next
five highest, the next ten highest. Beginning in 1997 the top 25 (approximately) finishers were
put into three categories: the five highest ranking individuals, the next ten highest, then the
next ten highest. The number in the Honorable Mention group remained at about 30-35. The
other change made in 1992 was the addition of an “Elizabeth Lowell Putnam Award” given
from time to time to a female participant with a high score. Through 2015, there have been
twelve individual winners. Of these, Ioana Dumitriu and Alison Miller won it three times and
Ana Caraiani and Melanie Wood won it twice. Dumitriu, Caraiani, and Wood were Putnam
Fellows. The only institution to have more than one woman win the Elizabeth Lowell Putnam
award is MIT with three. The 2004 competition was a highwater year for women. In addition
to Caraiani, Miller, two other women finished in the top fifteen, four more receievd honorable
mention, and another eleven finished in the top 200. Two of Princeton’s three-member team,
which was second to MIT, were women.
For most of the years between the late 1940s and the early 1990s Harvard far outpaced all
others schools in the number of individuals receiving honorable mention status or higher. In
1991 Harvard had 11 and MIT had just 1 in that group. By 1993 MIT narrowed the mar-
gin to 8-6 in favor of Harvard. The first time that MIT surpassed Harvard was 1998 with
the totals 11-9. In recognition of the significantly increasing number of participants, between
2002 and 2015 the number of those designed honorable mention has gradually increased from
approximately 45 to 60. Since 1998 MIT has widened its edge over Harvard in the number
of individuals receiving honorable mention status or higher with the widest margin of 34-6
occurring in 2012. In part, the recent disparity between MIT and Harvard is due to the fact
 6

that MIT has about four times as many math majors as Harvard. Among the ten institutions
in the 2012 competition that had the greatest number of people to achieve honorable mention
or higher status, the number from MIT exceeded the total of the other nine. Of the top 201
finishers in 2013, 57 were from MIT. During the years 2012-2014, MIT had twelve Putnam
Fellows, Harvard had four, and all other schools combined had zero. Despite MIT’s deep pool
of talent, between 1998 and 2015 Harvard won the team competition eight times to MIT’s six
times. In 2012 MIT had 12 who placed in the top 25 to Harvard’s 3 but only one MIT team
member was in the top 25 whereas Harvard had two team members in the top 5. That put
Harvard in first place and MIT in second.

4. A PUTNAM WHO’S WHO. Over the years many distinguished mathematicians and
scientists have participated in the Putnam. Among them are Fields Medalists John Milnor,
David Mumford, Daniel Quillen, Paul Cohen, John G. Thompson, and Manjul Bhargava.
Milnor, Mumford, and Quillen were Putnam Fellows; Cohen was in the second five; Thomp-
son received Honorable Mention; Bhargava was in the top 25. Physics Nobel Laureates who
have received Honorable Mention or better are Richard Feynman, a Putnam Fellow in 1939,
Kenneth G. Wilson, a two-time Putnam Fellow, Steven Weinberg, and Murray Gell-Mann.
The Nobel Prize winner in Economics John Nash (of “A Beautiful Mind” fame), to his great
disappointment, finished in the second five of 147 individuals in 1947. Thompson won the
$1,000,000 Abel Prize in 2008, Milnor won it in 2011, and Nash won it is 2014. Eric Lander,
one of the principal leaders in the Human Genome Project, finished in the second five in 1976.
Both Mumford and Lander are MacArthur Fellows. Craig Gentry, 1993 Putnam Fellow, is a
MacArthur Fellow. Distinguished computer scientist Donald Knuth received Honorable Men-
tion in 1959. American Mathematical Society Presidents who did well in the Putnam are Irving
Kaplansky (Putnam Fellow, 1938), Andrew Gleason (Putnam Fellow, 1940, 1941, 1942), Felix
Browder (Putnam Fellow, 1946), David Vogan (Putnam Fellow, 1972) and AMS and MAA
President Ron Graham (Honorable Mention, 1958). Putnam Fellows in National Academy of
Sciences include Elwyn Berlekamp, Felix Browder, Eugenio Calabi, Andrew Gleason, Melvin
Hochster, Roger Howe, Irving Kaplansky, George W. Mackey, John W. Milnor, David Mum-
ford, Daniel G. Quillen, Lawrence A. Shepp, Peter W. Shor, Richard G. Swan, David Vogan,
and Kenneth G. Wilson. Cohen, Browder, Thompson, and Mumford are National Medal of
Science laureates. Many others who have done well in the Putnam have won the prestigious
research awards given by the American Mathematical Society. The 1956 Harvard team had
both a future Nobel prize winner (Wilson) and a future Fields Medalist (Mumford). Both were
Putnam Fellows that year and Harvard’s team finished first.
One might wonder how the winners of the AMS/MAA/SIAM Morgan Prize for outstand-
ing research by an undergraduate student have done in the Putnam Competition. Of the
twenty-one recipients through 2016 Wood, Barton, Kane, Manolescu, Pixton, and Larson have
been Putnam Fellows. Three-time Putnam Fellows Kedlaya, Ng, Zhao, and O’Dorney received
Honorable Mention for the Morgan Prize.

5. CONCLUSION. Table 5 provides the top five scores, the mean of the top five scores,
and the median score for each competition between 1967 and 2015.3 Note that in seven of
3
This was all the data that I could locate.
 7

those years the median score was zero and in nine of them it was one! Between 1999 and 2015,
only five times was the medium score greater than 1. Also observe that in 1995 there was a
three-way tie for first place with a score of 86 and a two-way tie for second place with a score
of 85. In the period 1967–2015 the largest gap between the top score and the fifth highest
score was thirty-five, while the largest gap between highest top score and the second highest
was twenty-two. The largest median in the period was 19; the average median score is 4.5; the
median of the median scores is 2. Between 1996 and 2015 the median of the median scores is 1.
The greatest number of zero scores also occurred in 2015, when 2367 out of 4275 participants
registered scores of zero. The highest percentage of scores of zero occurred in 2006 with 62.6%
of the scores being zero. Table 6 gives the mean score, the percentage of the score of 0, the
score needed to finish in the top 200 (approximately) in the period from 1996 to 2015, and the
score needed to finish in the top 500 (approximately) in the period from 1996 to 2015.
Is there a lesson to be learned by examining the results of the Putnam competition? It seems
that doing well on the Putnam exam correlates well with high achievement as a professional
mathematician, but many of the best research mathematicians have not scored high on the
Putnam and of course many have not even taken the exam.
Oh, by the way, the cadets of West Point beat Harvard that day in 1933. A cadet had
the top individual score. Army’s victory was reported in the newspapers and the Army team
received a special letter of congratulations from the Army Chief of Staff, General Douglas
MacArthur.
Reference [7], written by Putnam Fellows Kedlaya, Poonen, and Vakil, gives the problems
with solutions and commentary from the Putnam competitions from 1985-2000. Reference [3]
provides an early history of the Putnam Competition. References [4] and [5] are articles that
relate Putnam trivia. Reference [1] is an article that provides the views of the Putnam competi-
tion by a number of Putnam fellows. The web site http://www.d.umn.edu/˜jgallian/putnamfel/PF.html
provides career information about Putnam Fellows. Problems and solutions from 1985-2015
are at http://amc.maa.org/a-activities/a7-problems/putnamindex.shtml
 8

Table 1. Number of participants in the first seventy-six competitions.

Year Number Year Number Year Number
1938 163 1967 1592 1994 2314
1939 200 1968 1398 1995 2468
1940 208 1969 1501 1996 2407
1941 146 1970 1445 1997 2510
1942 114 1971 1596 1998 2581
1946 67 1972 1681 1999 2900
1947 145 1973 2053 2000 2818
1948 120 1974 2159 2001 2954
1949 155 1975 2203 2002 3349
1950 223 1976 2131 2003 2615
1951 209 1977 2138 2004 3733
1952 295 1978 2019 2005 3545
1953 256 1979 2141 2006 3640
1954 231 1980 2043 2007 3753
1955 256 1981 2043 2008 3627
1956 291 1982 2024 2009 4036
1957 377 1983 2055 2010 4296
1958 S 430 1984 2149 2011 4440
1958 F 506 1985 2079 2012 4277
1959 633 1986 2094 2013 4113
1960 867 1987 2170 2014 4320
1961 1094 1988 2096 2015 4275
1962 1187 1989 2392
1963 1260 1990 2347
1964 1439 1991 2325
1965 1596 1992 2421
1966 1526 1993 2356

Table 2. Number of teams 1975–2015.

Year Number Year Number Year Number Year Number
1975 285 1985 264 1995 306 2005 395
1976 264 1986 270 1996 294 2006 402
1977 266 1987 277 1997 313 2007 413
1978 246 1988 257 1998 319 2008 405
1979 258 1989 288 1999 346 2009 439
1980 251 1990 289 2000 322 2010 442
1981 251 1991 291 2001 336 2011 460
1982 249 1992 284 2002 376 2012 402
1983 256 1993 291 2003 401 2013 430
1984 264 1994 284 2004 411 2014 431
2015 447
 9

Table 3. Winning teams in the first seventy-six competitions.

Institution First Second Third Fourth Fifth Putnam
Place Place Place Place Place Fellows
Harvard University 29 11 13 6 2 105
California Inst. Technology 10 3 7 5 7 25
Massachusetts Inst. Technology 8 11 10 8 7 67
University of Toronto 4 5 4 4 1 23
Washington University 4 4 1 2 6
Duke University 3 2 6 1 6
Brooklyn College 3 1 1 5
Michigan State University 3 2 5
University of Waterloo 2 3 6 3 5 8
Cornell 2 3 1 1 2 5
Polytechnic Inst. Brooklyn 2 1 3
Princeton University 1 11 5 7 5 22
University of Chicago 1 3 3 1 3 10
U. California, Berkeley 1 1 2 5 2 16
U. California, Davis 1 1 1 2
Queen’s University 1 1 1 1
Case Western Reserve 1 2 1 4
Carnegie Mellon 3 2 1 2 3
Yale University 3 1 4 3 10
Columbia University 2 3 8
Rice University 1 1 1 1 3
U. Pennsylvania 1 1 1 3
City College New York 1 4 10
Dartmouth 1 1 2
U. British Columbia 1 1 1
Oberlin College 1
Cooper Union 2 1
U. California, Los Angeles 2 1 2
Stanford University 1 7 2 3
Harvey Mudd College 1 1
U. Maryland, College Park 1 1
New York University 1 3
Miami University 1
Mississippi Women’s College 1
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1
 10

Table 3 (cont.). Top 5 teams in the first seventy-six competitions.

Institution First Second Third Fourth Fifth Putnam
Place Place Place Place Place Fellows
U. Michigan, Ann Arbor 1 2
Kenyon College 1 2
Swarthmore College 1 1
University of Manitoba 1 1
Illinois Inst. Technology 1
McGill University 1 1
Stony Brook University 1
University of Kansas 1
 11

Table 4. Institutions of Putnam Fellows in the first seventy-six competitions.

Institution Number
Harvard University 105
Massachusetts Inst. Technology 67
California Inst. Technology 25
University of Toronto 23
Princeton University 22
U. California, Berkeley 16
City College of New York 10
University of Chicago 10
Yale University 10
Columbia University 8
University of Waterloo 9
Duke University 6
Washington University 6
Brooklyn College 5
Cornell University 5
Michigan State University 5
Stanford University 4
Case Western Reserve 4
Carnegie Mellon 3
Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn 3
Rice University 3
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 3
University of Pennsylvania 3
New York University 3
Dartmouth College 2
Kenyon College 2
Purdue University 2
University of Alberta 2
University of California, Davis 2
University of California, Los Angeles 2
University of California, Santa Barbara 2
 12

Table 4 (cont.). Institutions of Putnam Fellows in the first seventy-six competitions.

Institution Number
Armstrong State University 1
College of St. Thomas 1
Cooper Union 1
Fort Hays Kansas State 1
George Washington University 1
McGill University 1
Reed College 1
Rose Hulman Institute of Technology 1
San Diego State University 1
Santa Clara 1
Simon Fraiser University 1
Swarthmore College 1
Queen’s University 1
Union College 1
University British Columbia 1
University of Detroit 1
University of Manitoba 1
University of Missouri, Rolla 1
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 1
University of Pittsburgh 1
University of Washington at Seattle 1
Wesleyan 1
Williams College 1
 13

Table 5. Top five scores, mean of top 5, overall median for the 1967–2015.
Year 1 2 3 4 5 Top 5 Exam
mean median
1967 67 62 60 58 57 60.8 6
1968 93 92 89 85 85 88.8 10
1969 87 82 80 79 73 80.2 10
1970 116 107 104 97 96 104.0 4
1971 109 90 88 84 74 89.0 11
1972 85 79 66 63 59 70.4 4
1973 106 86 86 78 76 86.4 7
1974 77 70 62 61 57 65.4 6
1975 88 87 86 84 80 85.0 6
1976 74 70 68 64 61 67.4 2
1977 110 103 90 90 88 94.2 10
1978 90 77 74 73 71 77.0 11
1979 95 90 87 87 73 86.4 4
1980 73 72 69 68 66 69.6 3
1981 93 72 64 60 60 69.8 1
1982 98 90 88 85 82 88.6 2
1983 98 88 81 80 79 85.2 10
1984 111 89 81 80 80 88.2 10
1985 108 100 94 94 91 97.4 2
1986 90 89 86 82 81 85.6 19
1987 120 108 107 90 88 102.6 1
1988 120 120 119 112 110 116.2 16
1989 94 81 78 78 77 81.6 0
1990 93 92 87 77 77 85.2 2
1991 100 98 97 94 93 96.4 11
1992 105 100 95 95 92 97.4 2
1993 88 78 69 61 60 71.2 10
1994 102 101 99 88 87 95.4 3
1995 86 86 86 85 85 85.6 8
1996 98 89 80 80 76 88.4 2
1997 92 88 78 71 69 79.6 1
1998 108 106 103 100 98 103.0 10
1999 74 71 70 69 69 70.6 0
2000 96 93 92 92 90 92.6 0
2001 101 100 86 80 80 89.4 1
2002 116 108 106 96 96 104.4 3
2003 110 96 95 90 82 94.6 1
2004 109 101 99 89 89 97.4 0
2005 100 98 89 86 80 90.6 1
2006 101 99 98 92 92 96.4 0
2007 110 97 91 90 82 94.0 2
 14

Table 5 (cont.). Top five scores, mean of top 5, overall median for the 1967–2015.
Year 1 2 3 4 5 Top 5 Exam
mean median
2008 117 110 108 102 101 107.4 1
2009 111 109 100 98 97 103.0 2
2010 120 118 117 110 109 114.8 2
2011 91 87 81 71 70 80 1
2012 100 87 81 80 78 85.2 0
2013 99 93 91 91 88 92.4 1
2014 96 89 85 81 81 86.4 3
2015 99 90 90 89 82 90.4 0

Table 6. Mean, percent 0, Top 200 cut off, Top 500 cut off
1996–2015.
Year Mean pct. 0 Top 200 Top 500
1996 8.7 36.7 26 17
1997 7.3 47.7 26 12
1998 14.8 30.3 43 28
1999 6.3 60.2 22 11
2000 5.3 57.7 22 11
2001 8.9 44.9 37 20
2002 11.0 34.7 41 24
2003 7.1 27.8 31 18
2004 8.4 53.6 40 22
2005 7.9 46.7 33 20
2006 6.2 62.6 32 14
2007 7.0 42.5 31 21
2008 9.5 47.2 41 22
2009 9.5 43.7 38 22
2010 11.9 47.0 49 31
2011 4.4 46.0 24 13
2012 8.2 52.7 33 23
2013 8.3 49.8 32 21
2014 9.7 34.4 39 27
2015 5.3 55.4 26 12
 15

6. APPENDIX I: EXAMINATION QUESTIONS FOR THE FIRST WILLIAM

LOWELL PUTNAM MATHEMATICAL COMPETITION, APRIL 16, 1938.

morning session: 9:00 to 12:00 noon.

1. A solid is bounded by two bases in the horizontal planes z = h/2 and z = −h/2, and by
such a surface that the area of every section in a horizontal plane is given by a formula of the
sort Area = a0 z 3 + a1 z 2 + a2 z + a3 (where as special cases some of the coefficients may be 0).
Show that the volume is given by the formula V = (1/6)h[B1 + B2 + 4M ], where B1 and B2
are the areas of the bases, and M is the area of the middle horizontal section. Show that the
formulas for the volume of a cone and a sphere can be included in this formula when a0 = 0.
2. A can buoy is to be made of three pieces, namely, a cylinder and two equal cones, the
altitude of each cone being equal to the altitude of the cylinder. For a given area of surface,
what shape will have the greatest volume?
3. If a particle moves in a plane, we may express its coordinates x and y as functions of
the time t. If x = t2 − t and y = t4 + t, show that the curve has a point of inflection at t = 0,
and that the velocity of the moving particle has a maximum at t = 0.
4. A lumberman wishes to cut down a tree whose trunk is cylindrical and whose material
is uniform. He will cut a notch, the two sides of which will be planes intersecting at a dihedral
angle θ along a horizontal line through the axis of the cylinder. If θ is given, show that the
least volume of material is cut when the plane bisecting the dihedral angle is horizontal.
5. Evaluate the limits:
2 Rx
(a) limn→∞ nen (b) limx→0 x1 0 (t + sin 2t)1/t dt
6. A swimmer stands at one corner of a square swimming pool and wishes to reach the
diagonally opposite corner. If w is his walking speed and s is his swimming
√ speed (s√< w),
find his path for the shortest time. [Consider two cases: (a) w/s < 2 and (b) w/s > 2].
7. take either (a) or (b).
(a) Show that the gravitational attraction exerted by a thin homogeneous spherical shell
at an external point is the same as if the material of the shell were concentrated at its center.
(b) Determine all the straight lines which lie upon the surface z = xy, and draw a figure to
illustrate your result.

afternoon session: 2:00-5:00 p.m.

8. take either (a) or (b).

(a) Let Aik be the cofactor of aik in the determine
 
 a11 a12 a13 a14 
 
 a21 a22 a23 a24 
 .
 a31 a32 a33 a34 
 
 a41 a42 a43 a44 

Let D be the corresponding determinant with aik replaced by Aik . Prove D = d3 .

(b) Let P (y) = Ay 2 + By + C be a quadratic polynomial in y. If the roots of the quadratic
equation P (y) − y = 0 are a and b (a 6= b), show that a and b are roots of the biquadratic
 16

equation P [P (y)] − y = 0. Hence write down a quadratic equation which will give the other
two roots, c and d, of the biquadratic. Apply this result to solving the following biquadratic
equation:
(y 2 − 3y + 2)2 − 3(y 2 − 3y + 2) + 2 − y = 0.

9. Find all the solutions of the equation

00
yy − 2(y 0 )2 = 0

which pass through the point x = 1, y = 1.

10. A horizontal disc of diameter 3 inches is rotating at 4 revolutions per minute. A light
is shining at a distant point in the plane of the disc. An insect is placed at the edge of the disc
furthest from the light, facing the light. It at once starts crawling, and crawls so as always
to face the light, at 1 inch per second. Set up the differential equation of motion, and find at
what point the insect again reaches the edge of the disc.
11. Given the parabola y 2 = 2mx. What is the length of the shortest chord that is normal
to the curve at one end?
12. From the center of a rectangular hyperbola a perpendicular is dropped upon a variable
tangent. Find the locus of the foot of the perpendicular. Obtain the equation of the locus in
polar coordinates, and sketch the curve.
13. Find the shortest distance between the plane Ax + By + Cz + 1 = 0 and the ellipsoid
x2 /a2 + y 2 /b2 + x2 /c2 = 1. (For brevity, let
p p
h = 1/ A2 + B 2 + C 2 and m = a2 A2 + b2 B 2 + c2 C 2 .)

State algebraically the condition that the plane shall lie outside the ellipsoid.

7. APPENDIX II: POSSIBLE MOST DIFFICULT PROBLEMS ON PUTNAM

COMPETITION BETWEEN 1974-2011

1979 competition (no positive scores)

A6 Let 0 ≤ pi ≤ 1 for i = 1, 2, . . . , n. Show that

n
X 1 1 1 1
≤ 8n(1 + + + · · · + )
|x − pi | 3 5 2n − 1
i=1

for some x satisfying 0 ≤ x ≤ 1.

2011 competition (no positive scores)

B6 Let
Pp−1p be an odd prime. Show that for at least (p + 1)/2 values of n in {0, 1, 2, . . . , p − 1},
k
k=0 k!n is not divisible by p.
 17

Acknowledgment. The data in Table 3 was kindly provided by Jerry Heuer, Leonard
Klosinski, and Jerry Alexanderson. I wish to thank Doug Jungreis, Kiran Kedlaya, Bjorn
Poonen and Ravi Vakil for their comments on a draft of the article that appeared in the
Monthly. No doubt this article set a record for the most number of Putnam Fellows to read a
draft of a Monthly article.

References
[1] G. L. Alexanderson, How Putnam fellows view the competition, Focus December, 2004
Focus 14–15.

[2] D. C. Arney, Army beats Harvard in football and mathematics!, (September, 1994) Math
Horizons 14–17.

[3] G. Birkhoff, The William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition: Early History. In
Gleason, Andrew M., R. E. Greenwood, L. M. Kelly, The William Lowell Putnam Mathe-
matical Competition/ Problems and Solutions: 19381964, Washington, DC, Mathematical
Association of America, 1980.

[4] J. A. Gallian, Fifty years of Putnam trivia, Amer. Math. Monthly 96 (1989) 711–713.

[5] J. A. Gallian, Putnam trivia for the 90s, Amer. Math. Monthly 107 (2000) 733–735.

[6] J. A. Gallian, The first sixty-six years of the Putnam competition, Amer. Math. Monthly
111 (2004) 691–699, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4145042.

[7] K. S. Kedlaya, B. Poonen, and R. Vakil, The William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Com-
petition 1985–2000: Problems, Solutions, and Commentary, Mathematical Association of
America, Washington, D.C., 2002.

[8] G. W. Mackey, The William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition Amer. Math.
Monthly 55 (1948) 630–633.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2305618.

Joe Gallian received a B.A. degree from Slippery Rock State University in 1966 and Ph.D.
from Notre Dame in 1971. He has been at the University of Minnesota Duluth since 1972,
where he is a University Distinguished Professor of Teaching. He has served on the editorial
boards of the American Mathematical Monthly, Math Horizons, the Mathematics Magazine,
and FOCUS. He has received the MAA’s Haimo Award for Distinguished Teaching, the Gung
and Hu Award for Distinguished Service to Mathematics, Allendoerfer award and Evans award
for exposition. He was a co-director of the MAA’s Project NExT 1994-2012 and has been an
MAA Pólya Lecturer. He has served terms as MAA Second Vice President and President. He
was a member of the inaugural class of AMS Fellows. In 2003 he was named Minnesota Pro-
fessor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Since 1977
he has run a summer undergraduate research program that has had a total of 231 participants
through 2016. He has had the good fortune to work with forty Putnam Fellows (76 counting
 18

multiplicity) and 32 IMO Gold Medal winners (49 counting multiplicity) in his summer pro-
grams.

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN 55812

[email protected]