Unofficial archive — problems, solutions & results © IMC, reproduced with permission.

Studolymp / IMC / 2000

IMC 2000
contestants 117 · problems 12 (6+6) · scale 0–20 · per-problem yes

Click any row to unfold its full profile — roster, per-problem chart, rank on every metric. Column headers sort the table (# is the place under the current sort); definitions live in the methodology at the bottom of the page.

unofficial grouping — built by us from the affiliation printed next to each contestant in the individual results, not an IMC classification
#universitynbestscoreaveragemedianFSTHMleague
1Kyiv Taras Shevchenko University4220816208.3202.531··First Prize
2Kiev Polytechnic Institute4221790.5200.7190.522··Second Prize
3Trinity College Cambridge7202779199.718952··First Prize
4Eotvos University, Budapest4223754.5191.717622··Second Prize
5Bonn University4200716.5181.7172.522··Second Prize
6Sharif University of Technology6198714.5190149312·First Prize
7Charles University Prague4182709.5178.3176.531··First Prize
8Warsaw University4183645.3163.3153.513··Second Prize
9Sofia University4197611.3156.7136.5121·Second Prize
10Ljubljana University4181592152.3138121·Second Prize
11Jagiellonan University3143542.7135.7142·3··Second Prize
12University of Zagreb4161472.3120.3100·13·Third Prize
13Technical University, Budapest4164455.3118.395.5·121Third Prize
14University of Helsinki4162423.811185.5·12·Third Prize
15Helsinki University of Technology4143418107.790·121Third Prize
16University of Szeged3123378.794.7119·2·1HM
17University of Tartu3141366.791.780·111HM
18TU-Berlin Fachbereich Mathematik3138345.386.3102·11·
19Shahid Beheshti University4139318.38253.5·1·3HM
20University of Tehran4109281.573.355.5··12HM
21Vilnius University Lithuania499268.569.354.5··12HM
22Los Andes University, Columbia370190.747.740··11
23University College London870174.450.312··2·
24University of Birmingham4481564036···2
25The University of Iowa442110.529.323···1
fewer than 3 contestants — individual results, not team statistics
Belgrade University218011··
University of Bucharest2155·2··
MIT, USA1145·1··
Plovdiv University1138·1··
University of Nis1135·1··
Nacional University, Columbia296··2·
Oxford University295··2·
ESIEE Paris177··1·
Ruse University164··1·

One row per university: everyone printed under that affiliation, team or not.
117 contestants · 34 universities (25 ranked) · prize cutoffs: First ≥ 169 · Second ≥ 119 · Third ≥ 64 · Honourable Mention ≥ 40

Methodology

Grouping. Contestants are grouped by the university printed in the official individual results, after a safe cleanup (case, diacritics, punctuation). Contestants with no listed affiliation form a separate unranked bucket. This view is unofficial; the IMC team contest (registered teams, incl. national and combined squads) is a different ranking.

Score formulas. official = sum of the top-3 totals + mean of all members (the IMC team-contest formula used in 2006–2019, applied here to university rosters); top-3 avg, top-5 avg (needs n ≥ 5), median, mean, best. The # column is the place under the current sort (ties share a place) — sort by any column and # becomes the rank in that rating; the default sort is the selected score formula, and clicking # returns to it. Only universities with n ≥ 3 are ranked; smaller ones are listed below with their individual results — facts, not statistics.

Median. For an even roster the median is the mean of the two middle totals — never the upper one, so a 4-person team gets no free half-step up.

A caveat on the official formula: its team-average term is not size-monotone — bringing one extra weaker contestant can lower the score (the top-3 formulas and the league never punish a bigger delegation). Keep that in mind when comparing selective and inclusive teams under the default ranking.

League = the prize level of the team’s third-best contestant, measured against this year’s real prize cutoffs. Third-best, because that grades the whole leading trio (the classic “team of three”), and because it is monotone: bringing one more student can never lower it — a median-based league would punish exactly the teams that bring many students. The median is shown separately in the passport. Prize cutoffs are used because they are published, understood by everyone, and auto-adjust to each year’s difficulty — no invented thresholds.

Evenness. balance = 3rd-best / best (1.00 = perfectly even trio); star gap = best − 2nd; without best = where the team would rank after removing its best contestant. Deliberately no mean/std composites: on rosters of 3–5 they reward “even but weak”.

Small-cohort honesty. Team shares are phrased “k/n”, never bare percents; points are only compared within one year (prize shares and percentiles travel across years, points don’t).