Physics Olympiads and Physics

Organized contests in physics and mathematics have been around for a while: probably the most famous ones are the Mathematical Tripos at Cambridge; the Westinghouse and the Putnam in the United States; and the International Physics and Mathematics Olympiads.

This post is about the correlation - or the lack thereof - between the winners list of these contests and the ranks of top scientists (e.g. signified by the Nobel prize or the Fields Medal).

1. International Physics Olympiad: This is held for high school students. Many countries have their own national versions, which they use for selecting the team they send to the international contest. The test has both theoretical and experimental parts, each totaling five hours. Gold (top 8%), silver (top 25%) and bronze (top 50%) medals are awarded (everyone gets a certificate of participation).

   
   

   The IPO has been running since 1967, and counts 80 participating countries now, but not a single medalist has ever won the Nobel prize in physics. I should say though that a fair number of IPO medalists have become (non-Nobel-) distinguished physicists - a list can be found at the end of the webpage linked to the title of this subsection.

   
   

   What is the reason for the lack of correlation? Is it because the problems posed in the IPO are somehow 'artificial' (emphasizing quickness over depth in problem solving) and have little to do with substantial problems faced by real physicists which typically require deep thinking and a lot of time (interestingly, several Nobel laureates have helped and promoted the IPO - e.g. Leon Lederman, Alain Aspect and Ann L'Huillier)? Is it because winning the Nobel prize necessitates experimental validation and (sometimes) large scale collaborations? Is it because most IPO medalists who become physics professors have chosen to work in string theory (see the list), a field in which Nobels are not forthcoming? I don't know.

   
   

2. International Math Olympiad: 6 problems have to be solved in 2 days, 4.5 hours per day allowed. The content is pre-university, calculus is avoided, calculators are banned. The topics are mostly algebra, geometry, combinatorics and number theory. Gold, silver and bronze medals are awarded roughly in the ratio 1:2:3. It started in 1959, now about 100 countries participate.

   
   

   Interestingly, tens of IMO medalists have won the Fields Medal in Mathematics. Some prominent examples include Terence Tao, Miriam Mirzakhani, Grigori Perlman (who declined it), and Akshay Venkatesh. Clearly, the correlation is much stronger than for physics. The reasons? I would love to know. Worth noting: physics Nobels are given many years after the discovery, Fields Medals are given before the awardees are 40 years of age; the Nobel prize is awarded every year, the Fields Medal once in 4.

   
   

3. The Westinghouse/Intel/Regeneron: This is a prize for research carried out in high school. The outcome depends on many factors: a paper, essay(s), test scores, recommendation letters, academic performance in high school, etc. Started in 1942, limited to the US citizens and residents, about 2000 applicants annually. Westinghouse winners have accounted for 13 Nobel prizes and 2 Fields Medals. Not bad!

   
   

4. The Putnam: A mathematics competition open to undergraduates in the US and Canada. 12 problems have to be solved over 6 hours on the first Saturday of December every year. Tests linear algebra, calculus and discrete mathematics. The Putnam Fellows get cash prizes. About 4000 students participate; the median score is typically 1/120. Archived problems can be found at the link.

   
   

   2 Fellows ended up winning physics Nobels (Feynman and Ken Wilson) and 3 won the Fields Medal. A bit low, considering the competition has been running since 1938.

   
   

5. The Tripos: Required for the bachelor's and master's degrees in mathematics at Cambridge. Started in the mid eighteenth century, and has evolved over time in its requirements. Intensive coaching was required for the exam.

   
   

   Those who received first class were called Wranglers and the position of Senior Wrangler has been called 'the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in England'. Some Famous Senior Wranglers: Cayley, Littlewood, Lord Rayleigh. Some famous Second Wranglers: Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, J. J. Thompson. A couple others: G. I. Taylor (5th Wrangler), Bertrand Russell (7th wrangler).

Summary

Contests like the IPO require intensive training, sharpen the mind, and stimulate creativity . I had a roommate in graduate school who had won silver at the IPO in 1993 and went on to his PhD at Harvard at the age of 19, and is now a professor at UCSD. He was clearly phenomenal.

At the same time, I think in emphasizing problem-solving and answer-generation, IPO-type competitions miss a crucial aspect of physics research - nurturing the ability to pose deep questions. Some great scientists have indicated their ambivalence - if not outright distaste - for such competitions. I will conclude with two quotes that come to my mind.

One is from the mathematician G. H. Hardy, who was sorry to have ended up 4th Wrangler, and thought that "although the race was ridiculous, he ought to have won it." The other is from Einstein (he failed his entrance exam to the ETH) who said he found consideration of any physics problem distasteful for a full year after graduating, because of the pressure of exams. Stuffing knowledge into himself, he said, destroyed his curiosity.