the vision for this group

[David Ash]

Thanks to István, Gabi and George for publishing the book as well as for starting this discussion group. Thanks also for the one or two problems posted so far.

(BTW I noted that István has referred to George as "Prof Berzsenyi" whereas George himself has asked to be called George, not "Prof Berzsenyi". With respect to István, I'm deferring to George's wishes on this one.)

I'm wondering whether there is a clear vision for this group. I noted with interest that in the "Aftermath" of the book a bit of a "call to action" for the future has been articulated. Is the purpose of this group to move that call to action forward?

Or does the vision not exist yet, and this group has been created to help develop such a vision? Even in such a case, I believe it would help to have people formally facilitate such a discussion so the discussion won't just be aimless. But creating the group and making the first few posts was certainly a great first step.

I definitely know people who might be able to help realize some of the "Call to Action" noted in the book's Aftermath. Before I reach out to them, though, I'd like to make sure that the vision is a bit clearer and that there is consensus on what we are asking people to do before I go ahead and ask them.

Looking forward to how this discussion will progress!

[Gabriella Pinter]

Hi David,

Thanks for your question.

Sorry for the late reply… we were exceptionally busy with the start of the semester…

To start the discussion on future Mathematics Student Journal we could use George’s description as a starting point. It is described in the book in detail. What is needed?

We believe, first and foremost a stable financial backing for at least 10 years. Various expenses need to be covered: web hosting, web design and maintenance, content management system, advertisements, travel funds, stipends for graders and for a few people to pull everything together (maybe cover course reductions as the MAA does); funds for contributors to the journal;

Next, we need people to prepare the problems: the 18-person problem committee sounds good, and we agree that it should start accumulating good problems well before the launch of the site;

Online journal content: and editorial board would be able to solicit articles, prepare reports etc. Alternatively, this could work like the Chalkdust magazine (https://chalkdustmagazine.com/ ) and be essentially student-edited. An institution with good graduate and undergraduate students and dedicated mentors could run this. This may also be content that is phased in as we go along and could start modest with some articles that connect to solutions.

It is not clear that national agencies view it as their role to provide stable financial support for such an initiative. (We joke – with some evidence supporting – that NSF nowadays would require extensive preliminary [evidence based] educational research to verify any of these ideas would actually make a positive impact (!)… because -- do we actually know? -- research have to show it…) So probably some type of private funding route is necessary.

Currently middle school, high school level math talent development in the US is somewhat of a niche business (serving mostly second generation immigrant kids, and many times focusing on drilling knowledge and skills rather than exploration or mentoring development), and talented kids from less-supporting family background are hard-pressed to find the resources.

Another thing that would be key to the continued success of such a problem-solving contest is teacher buy-in. Connections to school districts and teachers should be vigorously pursued and strengthened to really reach a wide audience. The Math Circle and Math Teacher Circle organizations housed now under AIM could be good allies.

Gabriella and Istvan

[Walter Effross]

     I have to admit that I don't yet have the book, and so I haven't seen the description/proposal.

    But might not a high-tech company like Alphabet/Google, IBM, Microsoft, or Apple, be interested in sponsoring, supporting technically, and/or helping to publicize, this venture (kind of like how Intel is now sponsoring what was once called the Westinghouse Science Talent Search)? 

     If not (or maybe in addition), perhaps financing and support might come from one or more of the investment funds, particularly "quant"-driven ones, where a number of the people featured in the book may have ended up (or at least spent some time). 

      Or someone like James Simons, founder of Renaissance Technologies (and a former chair of the math department at Stony Brook University), or Peter Muller (formerly of Morgan Stanley; and the founder of PDT Partners, and a board member of Math for America).

    You might also contact Will Shortz, crossword puzzle editor for the New York Times.  Although I don't think he deals much with math puzzles (except maybe sudoku), he certainly knows the ins and outs of the puzzle community.

    Also: maybe AARP or the Alzheimer's Association (because the puzzles could help some older people keep their minds sharp).

                         Best regards to all,

                          Walter Effross

                          http://www.effross.com

                          http://www.governancedrafting.com

Governance Drafting - Practical Provisions for the Boardroom and Beyond Practical Provisions for the Boardroom and Beyond www.governancedrafting.com

---

From: competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Gabriella Pinter <gaagp...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2021 12:38 PM
To: Competition Corner Participant Discussion <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: the vision for this group

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Competition Corner Participant Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to competition-corner-partici...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/competition-corner-participant-discussion/d035e37c-aba9-42d6-85f1-55e1a5151611n%40googlegroups.com.

[David Ash]

Thanks Gabi, István, and Walter!

I believe that for this to work the funding needs to come from someone with a passion for mathematics. Part of my reason for saying that is that I, too, have a passion for mathematics and it would be good to know that I have that in common with the person(s) who funds this endeavor.

Beyond that, I see a problem if money is accepted from someone in a particular industry that sometimes uses mathematics, but that lacks a deep passion for the field, is that I fear that such money would ultimately only end up serving the needs of that particular industry and not what is in the best interests of the field as a whole. The latter interests me and the former does not.

I would look for a high net worth individual (i.e. the funds come from an individual not an industry) with a deep passion for mathematics. It needs to be someone who loves the field. Yes, of course math can have practical benefits and sometimes people make money from successful applications of math. But I believe the person(s) driving this need to be driven by a deeper love for the field and not just a desire to use the field to make money.

Figuring out how much funding is needed would be an important first step.

How was the book funded BTW?

[David Ash]

Additionally the journal should serve the needs of the students it is directed at before it serves the needs of the industry it is funded by--which is why it is best that it not be funded by industry at all but by individual(s).

[Walter Effross]

     I may be a little confused here, without having seen the actual proposal-- but if the "vision" involves launching a journal on mathematical problems and problem-solving, how exactly would sponsoring it (which would certainly involve only comparatively "small change" for a major corporation of the type I suggested), be "serving the needs of the industry it is funded by" rather than those of (any interested members of) the general public?

    Yes, many of these companies' own employees (for example, at Google) have argued against some of the specific applications of their employers' technology.

     But in terms of encouraging a general interest in and fostering a genuine passion for mathematics, while simultaneously enhancing their reputations and images, I think these companies might well be interested in becoming involved, particularly in a project that seems (so far, at least) to be entirely nonpartisan and noncontroversial. 

     I suggest that we, and any sponsoring company/companies, make every effort to encourage readership of and involvement with this journal by the public at large, and particularly by members of demographic groups that have long been underrepresented in professions involving theoretical and/or practical mathematics.

     Before we begin any discussions of the relative merits of specific individuals whom some of us might believe have a "deep passion" for mathematics (but who might, now or later, be discovered to have their own "baggage" and controversies)-- and disqualifying those whom some of us might somehow think, don't-- maybe someone could explain how corporate involvement would constitute the initiative's "selling out" in any way, rather than allowing/enabling major companies to "buy in" to what appears to be a laudable vision.

                         Best regards,

                         Walter

---

From: 'David Ash' via Competition Corner Participant Discussion <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2021 7:20 PM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/competition-corner-participant-discussion/e58768cb-0a8b-465d-8773-885f20157ca0n%40googlegroups.com.

[David Ash]

Walter you ask in the first paragraph how corporate funding would "serve the needs of the industry it is funded by" and then answer your own question in the third paragraph. In the third paragraph you talk about "simultaneously enhancing their reputations and images". After introducing the topic of corporate funding, it took you only two more paragraphs to start talking in terms of how it will help the corporate funders by enhancing their reputations. And in those paragraphs you never said a word about how it might help the students.

That's the problem right there. The moment you start talking about corporate funding, the conversation quickly shifts to how it would help said corporation.

I'm much more interested in enhancing the reputations and images of the field of mathematics and the students of that field. I think that is best achieved by exploring other funding sources besides just the usual suspects of Silicon Valley and Wall Street--I'm familiar with that game but have a been there, done that attitude with regard to those rather tired sources of funding for math-related activities. I'd like to see some more creative ideas for funding sources that will allow the field of mathematics, and most importantly its young students, as much independence as possible.

[Walter Effross]

     Oh, please.

     First of all, my first paragraph said, serving the needs of the corporate donors (the benefits to whom are obvious to all) "rather than" those of the students/public. 

     I thought my point would be clear, that both the corporations and the students/public could benefit, and that the interests of the latter would in no way (at least, that I could see) be sacrificed to those of the former.  (Of course, the people behind the journal could always insist to potential funders that the editors would have complete editorial independence.)

     Second, I did of course mention benefits to students ("fostering a general passion for mathematics"-- and later, encouraging greater involvement with mathematics by those historically underrepresented . 

     Third, no one could disagree with "creativity" in funding-- unless, again, it would involve the project with individuals or groups whose own controversial actions/remarks could, especially in an era of social media, affect the journal by association.

     But-- and finally-- it's simply puerile to dismiss out of hand "the usual suspects" as "tired sources of funding."  "Tired" money is still money, last time I checked.

     I'm done with this discussion.

---

From: 'David Ash' via Competition Corner Participant Discussion <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2021 9:40 PM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/competition-corner-participant-discussion/91ff4800-df5b-47d7-be52-44a2784361efn%40googlegroups.com.

[David Ash]

Walter,

Yes your point actually was very clear when you said that "both the corporations and the students/public could benefit, and that the interests of the latter would in no way be sacrificed by those of the former." I definitely DID understand that that was your point even the first time you said it. You were, indeed, very clear.

It is just that while your own position was very clear, I have a different take on this. I don't believe it is possible to serve the needs of both corporations and the students/public and not sometimes sacrifice the interests of the latter in favor of the former. I'm not claiming that everything in life is a zero-sum game, but I do claim that when big corporations get involved it more often than not turns out that way.

While "tired" money may still be money, not all money is created equal. Some money comes with greater levels of types of control than others.

At this point, just to say where I'm coming from, I simply have a point of view that I'm trying to get out there. I don't have any problem with the fact that you have a different point of view that you are also trying to get out there. I'm sorry to hear that you feel that you need to bow out of the conversation. In a healthy community, different points of view of are encouraged without everyone feeling that they need to agree. I will not be bowing out of the conversation; you and I don't need to agree for us to continue to both be active participants in the discussion.

However I do plan to wait until we get a bit more of a sense of direction from Gabi and István before I respond further. While I am skeptical about whether we need to either seek or need big corporate sponsors, one thing I think we DO need is for  Gabi and István to be VERY actively involved for this to happen.

[David Ash]

One other point that I will add: some of the corporations from whom the journal would be potentially accepting funding have grown very powerful, and they are already sometimes controversial organizations in the eyes of the general public. These potential corporate funders are not necessarily seen as benign organizations in the eyes of the public. That could turn off high school students if they have (or their parents have) a negative view of the corporate sponsors they would be aligning themselves with if they participate. We could lose the interest of very talented high school students if they do not want to align themselves with the corporations we accept funding from.

And that is something that WILL happen, at least in some cases, if such funding is accepted. The organizations that we would be accepting funding from are not universally loved organizations in the eyes of the general public.

Of course you are also right that accepting funding from a private individual who later turns out to come with their own baggage could also be problematic. At this early stage we should be exploring all possible options.

[Istvan Lauko]

I'd respond to some questions and would interject a few points here...

1. We sought and received zero funding for creating the book itself. It was a two-year, part time, zero budget project. On one hand being in academia (or being retired from it) we had the luxury of a high level of freedom, and decided that such a project would be valuable enough to sacrifice time for. On the other hand seeking and managing funding and working with established publishing entities is actually a substantial overhead in time and effort, and as we had the set of skills to do the entire thing from start to finish efficiently, we just did it on our own. 

2. The project discussed here is longer term, much larger, and complex, and to be successful and be of worth, the key goals of it should be high quality, high accessibility, and sustainability. It would require commitment from a larger number of people. It cannot be run as a shoestring operation, thus appropriate level and structure of funding is essential for its success. I think this much is clear to everyone here.

3. I do not see a real conflict between the points argued by David and Walter, except for their preferences (that must be colored by their personal experiences). However this debate highlights potential pitfalls in handling the funding component of the project. I do not have a lot of experience in this, but in my view, more diverse funding is preferred to single sourced funding. At any rate, the project should clearly define its vision, objectives and framework of operation, and invite anyone with means who share the vision and goals to pledge support. We should be clear about welcoming anyone's or any entity's support for the shared objective, but should reserve the right to refuse some support whenever association with a supporter would harm the success of the project (as mentioned above). My guess is that this approach works if it is clearly stated and adhered to, and it is pretty much standard and productive except in cases where the relationship with the funder is mismanaged (as a general rule, ends should not justify the means).

Negative public perception around a funder could become a concern, but

a) that's where diversity could help and

b) although the objective is relatively non-political, malignant punditry and innuendo can generate negative association even where there is none -- so transparency is important and a certain level of tolerance is required anyway.

4. Any contribution to formulating a workable plan is appreciated, specific actionable suggestions and feedback are welcome.

5. We are at a state funded institution that has recently become an R1 Research University and aspires to maintain that, but the mathematics department is in the process of being deconstructed (despite of being quite productive the number of tenured/ tenure track faculty in 12 years dropped from 33 to 18). Unfortunately we do have to deal with issues related to that as well.

Istvan

[vincent miller]

Anyone have any idea of an “ask”?

Many math colleagues have done amazingly well and could make some major support the proverbial “rounding error”..

That being said anyone who is considering support will ask “how much do you need”?

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 12, 2021, at 11:03 AM, Istvan Lauko <igl...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/competition-corner-participant-discussion/42f51e46-292f-49b7-9c6a-75d3f568dc7dn%40googlegroups.com.

[vincent miller]

Two Sigma is led by several former competitors and very generous 

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 12, 2021, at 11:03 AM, Istvan Lauko <igl...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/competition-corner-participant-discussion/42f51e46-292f-49b7-9c6a-75d3f568dc7dn%40googlegroups.com.

[David Ash]

Thanks for this reply István. For now I will add only that I am very much in favor of the funding being as diverse as possible. If we get funding from only a single Wall Street or Silicon Valley company, it may create the impression (accurate or otherwise) with students that they are being steered into a career with that particular company. As I previously mentioned, that may be a problem if the student doesn't want to work for that company for any of a number of reasons.

With more diverse funding, however, it sends the much more empowering message that these students have multiple career options, and that is a much better message to send. It also helps mitigate against controversial funding sources. If something so controversial happens with a given source (and this could happen either with a company or a HNWI) that they need to be dropped, hopefully the other sources can pick up the slack.

We also will eventually need to get as many colleges and universities involved as possible in a similar way to how UW-Madison has been involved up to now.

David

[Istvan Lauko]

The question was asked: What is the ask?... Here is some structure and some numbers and some to be filled in (no final number is provided [subject to choices a variety of variables] -- inputs are welcome )

To Wit:

The US throughout its history in large part has imported much of it’s high level technical talent. The process is substantially slowing down as the rest of the world becomes competitive. 

In my view technical talent search and development is a national economy’s infrastructure resource, in some ways akin to the road system, in some ways different; it is similarly a limiting (essential) resource, though it is less physically manifested, and partially importable. If you cannot import it however, you have to build it out. Like the road system, it works if it is well-built, and relatively uniformly maintained. And like the road system, it does not build and maintain itself.

To base its buildup and maintenance on volunteerism and ad hoc efforts is analogous to doing the same with the road system.

And the search for such high talent and its initial development is best done via mathematics.

The Berzsenyi-proposal:

Mathematics Student Journal (Let’s call it Parabola(?))

Vision:

Free online math journal for students with a problem solving competition; 6 issues yearly with 4 levels of problems sets (Grades: 5-6, 7-8, 9-10, 11-12)

Goal: attract more students to math through problem solving; provide appropriate challenges and community experience where talented students can develop their math interests; 

Features: articles, interviews, news, jokes, memes, video and game recommendations; classic puzzles; problem sets, solutions, photos;  

Personnel: (all remote)

♦Content editor ($70-90K+fringe)

♦Problem editor ($70-90K+fringe)

♦Graphic designer/web content manager ($70-90K+fringe)

♦Outreach/marketing coordinator  ($50-70K)

♦Accounting services provider ($30K)

Graders (approx. 10 graders for each problem; ~200 graders total; $100-200K per issue) 

Problem committees  six person committees for four age-groups (2-person overlaps) 18 people - $2-3K per person(?)

Other costs ($?): 

♦Recruitment costs

♦Teachers/Schools support 

♦Advertising and promotion costs

♦Conference attendance/travel

♦Web hosting

♦Computers

♦Prizes

♦Software licenses; problem management system -- submission, grading, venue for feedback, guidance for actively search out and explore open problems  (bought, donated or developed)

Remarks:

♣In the Wisconsin experiment there is a single prize (may or may not be the best motivator): The best contestants are invited for a single, in-person, timed, written problem solving contest, with the winner awarded a 4-year University Wisconsin - Madison Scholarship ($6K/year for 4 years)

♣ Teacher buy-in is very important for impact -- recruitment, recognition, feedback&support

♣ Grading is key to the quality of the program -- not to be treated as a high-demand but low-paid, quasy automated effort. The MS-CC experience showed that timely, personalized, quality feedback was likely the most impactful program feature in that effort 

see Reflections at 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g0TXjmewfG5Gv0oVi5SFIxrtZ8cRCNnW/view

Quality feedback for talent development is a time and research intensive task for highly trained professionals -- directly leading to open problem exploration and student research

♣ Demand Projections/Estimates are based on https://talent.math.wisc.edu/scores/

2020–2021 WISCONSIN MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE TALENT SEARCH

THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON program

5 Rounds, 25 problems, 83 unique registered solvers

Total problem set submissions: 190

Total distinct problem submission (scores 0-3): 722

    Score 0: 226

    Score 1: 134

    Score 2: 103

    Score 3: 259

[A "4 age-group 5-round National (or North-American) projection" (population X 64)

5 Rounds, 4*25 problems, 256*83=21248 projected unique registered solvers

Total projected problem set submissions: 48640

Total projected distinct problem submissions (scores 0-3): 184832

    Score 0: 57856

    Score 1: 34304

    Score 2: 26368

    Score 3: 66304

]

[A "4 age-group 6-round National (or North-American) projection" (population X 64)

6 Rounds, 4*30 problems, 307*83 projected unique registered solvers

Total projected problem set submissions: 58368

Total projected distinct problem submissions (scores 0-3): 221799

    Score 0: 69427

    Score 1: 41165

    Score 2: 31642

    Score 3: 79565

]

2020-21 WISCONSIN DATA:

ROUND5

#2    Grade 112xx

#5    Grade 1x10x

#10    Grade 33332

#15    Grade 33333

#29    Grade 2x1x3

#30    Grade 33333

#31    Grade xxx3x

#36    Grade 31133

#37    Grade 31233

#44    Grade 33232

#45    Grade 30x3x

#70    Grade 1010x

#71    Grade 3×233

#72    Grade x01x0

#74    Grade 33213

#76    Grade 001×0

#77    Grade 10000

#78    Grade 32233

#80    Grade 2xxxx

#81    Grade xxx0x

#82    Grade 0xxx0

#83    Grade 10xxx

ROUND4

#2    Grade 22311

#5    Grade 30200

#8    Grade 2x2xx

#10    Grade 33331

#15    Grade 33313

#23    Grade 00xx0

#29    Grade 23330

#30    Grade 33330

#31    Grade 2xxx3

#34    Grade 2x1xx

#36    Grade 23230

#37    Grade 30210

#44    Grade 331×0

#45    Grade 3×230

#47    Grade 20xxx

#49    Grade 3x3xx

#54    Grade 3xxxx

#58    Grade 33212

#70    Grade 3×320

#71    Grade 33330

#74    Grade 33311

#77    Grade 10100

#78    Grade 333×2

ROUND3

#2    Grade 22212

#45    Grade 31xx0

#5    Grade 20001

#47    Grade xx0xx

#6    Grade 3101x

#49    Grade 33002

#8    Grade 21000

#53    Grade 32x3x

#10    Grade 2333x

#54    Grade 2xx20

#15    Grade 33×13

#58    Grade 00011

#19    Grade 2x0x0

#64    Grade x1xxx

#23    Grade 000xx

#66    Grade 33x3x

#29    Grade 23201

#70    Grade 33x3x

#30    Grade 31333

#71    Grade 2122x

#31    Grade 33030

#72    Grade 10000

#34    Grade 31301

#74    Grade 33333

#36    Grade 33231

#76    Grade 10020

#37    Grade 32231

#77    Grade 00000

#43    Grade 0110x

#78    Grade 23333

#44    Grade 33201

ROUND2

#2    Grade 33×21

#44    Grade 33211

#3    Grade xx00x

#45    Grade 33×21

#4    Grade xx00x

#46    Grade 3xx10

#5    Grade 33121

#47    Grade 00xxx

#6    Grade 13021

#49    Grade 33021

#8    Grade 00000

#53    Grade 33223

#9    Grade xxx0x

#54    Grade 33x2x

#10    Grade 33223

#55    Grade 00000

#14    Grade 33323

#58    Grade 31200

#15    Grade 33333

#63    Grade x3xxx

#19    Grade 00000

#64    Grade 31×21

#23    Grade 00000

#66    Grade 3333x

#29    Grade 13032

#70    Grade 3333x

#30    Grade 33323

#71    Grade 32×21

#31    Grade 33221

#73    Grade 32xxx

#34    Grade 32321

#74    Grade 33322

#37    Grade 33321

#76    Grade 31200

#41    Grade 3312x

#77    Grade 00000

#43    Grade 33001

#78    Grade 33312

#79    Grade 00x0x

ROUND1

#2    Grade 13211

#27    Grade xx0xx

#53    Grade 3xx3x

#3    Grade 10x0x

#28    Grade 33313

#54    Grade 33333

#4    Grade 10x0x

#29    Grade 21313

#55    Grade 11000

#5    Grade 21100

#30    Grade 31233

#56    Grade 23332

#7    Grade 00xxx

#31    Grade 13233

#57    Grade 000xx

#8    Grade 10000

#32    Grade xxx0x

#58    Grade 11333

#9    Grade 1xx0x

#33    Grade 11×00

#59    Grade 00000

#10    Grade 3323x

#35    Grade 0xx00

#60    Grade 0xxxx

#11    Grade 0xxxx

#36    Grade 23211

#61    Grade 11010

#12    Grade 0xxxx

#37    Grade 31121

#62    Grade 0x0xx

#13    Grade 00×10

#38    Grade 110xx

#64    Grade 11233

#14    Grade 21311

#39    Grade 1xxxx

#65    Grade xx0x0

#15    Grade 33303

#40    Grade xxxxx

#66    Grade 3x23x

#16    Grade xxx0x

#41    Grade 31132

#67    Grade xxxxx

#17    Grade 00000

#42    Grade xxxxx

#68    Grade 11x0x

#18    Grade 1xx00

#43    Grade 2xx10

#69    Grade 00000

#19    Grade 21000

#44    Grade 11133

#70    Grade 33332

#20    Grade 00000

#45    Grade 23×31

#71    Grade 11230

#21    Grade xx00x

#46    Grade 11×00

#72    Grade 10233

#22    Grade 00x0x

#47    Grade 101xx

#73    Grade 330×0

#23    Grade xxxx0

#48    Grade 0000x

#74    Grade 33333

#25    Grade xxxx0

#49    Grade 11111

#75    Grade 0000x

#26    Grade xxx0x

#50    Grade 2×000

#76    Grade 10233

#27    Grade xx0xx

#51    Grade x00xx

#77    Grade 10000

#28    Grade 33313

#52    Grade x0000

#78    Grade 33333

[Walter Effross]

     Just a few (non-funding-related) thoughts:

     "Parabola" has been used for decades as the title of a quarterly magazine featuring (often reprinting) material on a different spiritual theme in each issue.  (The list of themes is interesting all by itself: see https://store.parabola.org/back-issues-in-print-c2.aspx )

     It might be useful to feature items by and/or about mathematics teachers (whether or not on the university level), particularly those whose entries in previous contests are featured in George's book.

     It also might not hurt to involve a celebrity who is also a math scholar, such as Danica McKellar and/or John Urschel.

     Do we know how the competitions will be set up to prevent participants from cheating (for instance, by getting help from other people in preparing their answers)?

     Finally, those who haven't yet seen it might be interested in this profile, from today's New York Times Magazine:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/14/magazine/ingrid-daubechies.html

            Best regards,

               Walter

---

From: competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Istvan Lauko <igl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2021 11:22 AM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/competition-corner-participant-discussion/8689f791-e73b-4f9e-86a7-1156e65216f6n%40googlegroups.com.

[David Ash]

Thanks István!

I believe that István is correct in saying that the pipeline of international mathematicians wanting to move to the US is slowing. This has an important corollary I'll mention now. The journal will need to help increase passion and love for the field of mathematics. Part of the reason why the US has traditionally needed to import a lot of its mathematical talent is because math has traditionally been an unloved field here in the US. Of course there are exceptions and the exceptions are no doubt highly overrepresented in this group. But in general the general population tends to hate math much more than they love math, and that general attitude definitely reduces the numbers of kids drawn to math.

If the US is to nurture mathematical talent from an early age, rather than just importing it, the cultural perception of math needs to change. The journal appears intended to attract kids in middle school and even earlier--and I agree it is necessary to start with kids at as early an age level as possible. To attract kids at an early age group, however, isn't going to happen unless math is something that is culturally better accepted. If kids see that their peers hate math, their parents hate math, some of their teachers hate math, and even their math teacher only grudgingly accepts math--it is going to turn off at least some of even the mathematically talented youth.

At least some people do recognize that math is an important prerequisite for a career in tech and that tech careers can be lucrative--so I think the level of acceptance of math in US culture is probably a bit higher than it was in the past--say during the original Competition Corner days around 1980. There has been progress in this area, but a great deal more progress is needed, and the journal to succeed will need to be leading the charge in making math a better loved field.

[David Ash]

Also I agree with the idea of getting celebrities who are also math scholars involved. I believe this would help a great deal with the image problem I've noted below that math has here in the US. The problem is that the set of celebrities who are also math scholars is very small, but the involvement of any such people who are out there would be very welcome.

[David Ash]

István has now posted the "ask". I do confess to a certain level of sticker shock--the price tag is a bit higher than I was expecting, but makes sense now that István has laid it all out. It looks like István and Gabi are proposing a serious effort, rather than something just to be done on a shoestring, which is good but does lead to a higher price tag.

While I know some financially very successful people, I've never personally made the big bucks nor has making the big bucks ever been a major goal of mine. The funding ask--especially if funding is needed for ten years all at once--is probably high enough that I can't make a significant dent in it myself. Had István come forward with more of a shoestring initial budget proposal, I would have put myself forward as one possible source of funding. However my contacts may still prove useful and if there is a path for people of more modest means to become donors, I'd be interested.

[David Ash]

I worked with the co-founders of Two Sigma back when I was at D.E. Shaw. Although I have reservations in general about Wall Street as a funding source, as individuals the Two Sigma guys are both great guys. I haven't been in touch with them since I left D.E. Shaw, though, so don't know if I'd be successful in contacting them today.

[Walter Effross]

     Another celebrity whom we might try to "recruit": Taylor Heinicke, starting quarterback for the Washington Football Team.

     At least, according to a long article on page A14 of today's Wall Street Journal ("He Was Solving Differential Equations.  Then the NFL Called.").

                             Walter

---

From: 'David Ash' via Competition Corner Participant Discussion <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2021 7:01 PM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/competition-corner-participant-discussion/3e0753bc-1c56-4d63-9cc6-1d6d0b61b5e1n%40googlegroups.com.

[George Berzsenyi]

A mathematics magazine by the name Parabola has been published by the University of New South Wales of Australia since 1964.  A friend of mine, Agnes Nikov (another Hungarian) was its editor for many years.  Hence, that name is taken.

On the other hand, NCTM deserves the honor to name the new journal the Mathematics Student Journal, the name NCTM used initially.  In my view, the proposed journal should be an improved version and a continuation of that.