<p>Oh, that’s too bad – I had friends who absolutely loved him, although it doesn’t surprise me that he wouldn’t be teaching anymore. I would imagine he’s close to retirement!</p>
<p>Rogers co-taught a fall advising seminar in the past for people interested in Putnam. Did he not do that this year?</p>
<p>Yes, he always does that, along with Richard Stanley, I believe. But that seminar is usually for a very small subset of MIT people, and probably is not that strong a commentary on how a more mainstream class might be. I won’t even try it until I’ve gotten a lot more math experience under my belt; I know people who have done USAMO for years who are shying away from it.</p>
<p>
I know people who have done USAMO for years who are not interested in Putnam for reasons having to do with the math involved, sort of like there are IOI medalists who decide not to do ACM because of differences in the computer science involved.</p>
<p>Anyway, I certainly agree with you that the seminar is for a very small subset of MIT people. But I’m glad to hear that Hartley and Rogers are still teaching it.</p>
<p>I guess that could be a contributing factor. Another contributing factor, at least in the case of 2-3 people I know, is being somewhat daunted by the caliber of people taking the class. I’d like to emphasize this is simply what I’ve been told by a few people; the actual seminar might not be that intimidating, but I’ve certainly been given the impression that it is. Which doesn’t mean that we’ll never take it – I know as soon as I do .100B and another intermediate problem-solving seminar, I’ll take that seminar.</p>