pmontgom@euphemia.math.ucla.edu (Peter Montgomery) (03/09/91)
The 1991 ACM Scholastic Programming Contest Finals were
held Wednesday March 6 at the Computer Science Conference in San Antonio,
Texas. Twenty-five teams of four each had five hours to attempt
eight programming problems, which could be solved in C or Pascal.
It was announced Thursday afternoon that Stanford won.
Both Stanford and Vrije got seven of the eight correct, but Stanford
was faster and/or had fewer rejected submissions.
The full rankings:
Rank Did Name
1 7 Stanford
2 7 Vrije (Netherlands)
3 6 Virginia Tech
4 5 Victoria (New Zealand)
5 5 University of Central Florida
6 5 University of Oregon
7 5 Oberlin
8 5 Harvard
9 4 Southwestern Louisiana
10 3 Virginia
11 3 Southwest Missouri State
14 3 University of California, Irvine (I was rooting for you!!)
15 3 Columbia
16 3 University of Texas, Austin
17 2 Calgary
18 2 Pennsylvania
19 2 Beloit
20 2 Louisville
21 2 Brown
22 2 Drexel
23 2 Mesa College (Colorado)
24 1 Florida International
25 1 National Chiao Tung (Taiwan)
Tuesday's Turing lecture was titled "On Building Systems
which will Fail". The contest was supposed to being at 1:00 Wednesday,
but was delayed almost 2 hours due to machine problems, causing it
to run past the start of a dinner to which all contestants were invited.
Meanwhile the schedule of Employment Register interviews for Wednesday
afternoon was incomplete, also because of machine failure.
Now if we could learn the results of the Putnam Competition given
December 1, 1990 ...
--
Peter L. Montgomery
pmontgom@MATH.UCLA.EDU
Department of Mathematics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555
If I spent as much time on my dissertation as I do reading news, I'd graduate.ls2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lui Sieh) (03/11/91)
> Excerpts from netnews.soc.college: 9-Mar-91 Stanford wins ACM > Programmi.. Peter Montgomery@euphemi (1803) > The 1991 ACM Scholastic Programming Contest Finals were > held Wednesday March 6 at the Computer Science Conference in San Antonio, > Texas. Was Carnegie Mellon University not among the competitors? Somehow I'm a bit shocked to see that 2 of the top Computer Science Departments/Schools aren't even listed in the Top 25. (MIT being the second other school not mentioned). -Lui Judge not by the appearance, but judge righteous judgement. Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist.- R.W Emerson Opinions are mine and mine only...besides who'd want them? ls2r@andrew.cmu.edu ls2r%andrew@CARNEGIE
dpassage@monsoon.Berkeley.EDU (David G. Paschich) (03/11/91)
In article <Ybqobwm00awLE4_2Jt@andrew.cmu.edu> ls2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lui Sieh) writes: >> Excerpts from netnews.soc.college: 9-Mar-91 Stanford wins ACM >> Programmi.. Peter Montgomery@euphemi (1803) > >> The 1991 ACM Scholastic Programming Contest Finals were >> held Wednesday March 6 at the Computer Science Conference in San Antonio, >> Texas. > >Was Carnegie Mellon University not among the competitors? Somehow I'm a >bit shocked to see that 2 of the top Computer Science >Departments/Schools aren't even listed in the Top 25. (MIT being the >second other school not mentioned). Yeah, what about UC Berkeley? Or, given the apparent victor, do I not want to know? David G. Paschich dpassage@ocf.berkeley.edu Just say not to huge .sigs!
bloch@mandrill.ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch) (03/12/91)
pmontgom@euphemia.math.ucla.edu (Peter Montgomery) writes: > >Rank Did Name > 1 7 Stanford > 2 7 Vrije (Netherlands) > 3 6 Virginia Tech >... Great! I was on Virginia Tech's team a few years ago when we came in second to Johns Hopkins, whom we'd beaten at the regional level. Of course, that was the first year the contest extended outside the U.S. so only two non-U.S. teams even showed up. >The contest was supposed to being at 1:00 Wednesday, >but was delayed almost 2 hours due to machine problems, causing it >to run past the start of a dinner to which all contestants were invited. Why does this sound familiar? Our contest started on time (AFTER dinner!) but was put on hold for an hour and a half due to machine problems; we got out at the typical hacker hour of 4 AM. By the way, these programming contests are an INCREDIBLE experience! Imagine being in a ballroom surrounded by a hundred or so of the best hackers you'll ever meet in your life, and amply stocked with junk food... Steve Bloch bloch@cs.ucsd.edu
akm@cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) (03/12/91)
In article <1991Mar11.130255.10532@agate.berkeley.edu> dpassage@monsoon.Berkeley.EDU (David G. Paschich) writes: >In article <Ybqobwm00awLE4_2Jt@andrew.cmu.edu> ls2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lui Sieh) writes: >>> Excerpts from netnews.soc.college: 9-Mar-91 Stanford wins ACM >>> Programmi.. Peter Montgomery@euphemi (1803) >>Was Carnegie Mellon University not among the competitors? Somehow I'm a >>bit shocked to see that 2 of the top Computer Science >>Departments/Schools aren't even listed in the Top 25. >Yeah, what about UC Berkeley? Or, given the apparent victor, do I not want >to know? Berkely was eliminated at the regionals, or so I believe. The representatives for the Pacific division (or whatever the name this region is given is) were Stanford and Oregon. kartik -- Anant Kartik Mithal akm@cs.uoregon.edu Research Assistant, (503)346-4408 (msgs) Department of Computer Science, (503)346-3989 (direct) University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1202
st891425@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (03/15/91)
Congratulations to you, Stanford. But at least I go to a school where government funds for scientific research aren't appropriated for the president's private yacht, landscaping, or wedding receptions!!! (flame off) --Andy Weiskopf ST891425@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
mciver@gravytrain.colorado.edu (William McIver Jr.) (03/19/91)
In article <Ybqobwm00awLE4_2Jt@andrew.cmu.edu> ls2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lui Sieh) writes: ... >Was Carnegie Mellon University not among the competitors? Somehow I'm a >bit shocked to see that 2 of the top Computer Science >Departments/Schools aren't even listed in the Top 25. (MIT being the >second other school not mentioned). > > >-Lui > >Judge not by the appearance, but judge righteous judgement. >Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist.- R.W Emerson >Opinions are mine and mine only...besides who'd want them? >ls2r@andrew.cmu.edu ls2r%andrew@CARNEGIE What an arrogant and short sighted assumption. I find it ironic that you quote Emerson above on nonconformity and admonishments about judging on *appearance*. The results of the ACM contest should tell you something about the correlation between polls and reality. By the way, I *sincerely* (no flame here) wonder what poll you are basing your rankings of CMU and MIT on? WJM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- William J. McIver, Jr. mciver@tigger.colorado.edu Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado @ Boulder --------------------------------------------------------------------
andy@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) (03/22/91)
>The results of the ACM contest should tell you something about >the correlation between polls and reality. What reality did the ACM contest measure? -andy doesn't think that the contest results say anything about the ranking of the grad schools, but then he thinks that ranking grad schools is stupid -- UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@neon.stanford.edu BELLNET: (415) 723-3088
gjb@cs.brown.edu (Gregory Brail) (03/22/91)
In article <1991Mar21.223344.25349@neon.Stanford.EDU> andy@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: >>The results of the ACM contest should tell you something about >>the correlation between polls and reality. > >What reality did the ACM contest measure? There's not always a correlation between the quality of a graduate school and the quality of its undergraduates. And there's certainly no correlation between a graduate school's "reputation" and how well a few undergraduates do in a programming competition. -greg +----------------------------------------------------+ Greg Brail Internet: gjb@cs.brown.edu BITNET: gjb@browncs.bitnet UUCP: ..uunet!brunix!gjb Home: (401)273-1172
amk4n@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Andreas kogelnik) (03/22/91)
It may be noteworthy to mention that most teams consisted of BOTH undergraduates and graduates!!!