About SoME4 prize money
The goal
In the original conception of SoME, we set out some prize money to incentivize people to enter, together with a promise to feature top results on 3blue1brown. In that first year, the peer review process was there to make the final manual selection process easier. What became clear in successive years is that the peer review process alone does a wonderful job surfacing the best content, and moreover, it does a great job rewarding that content through meaningful exposure.
This year, rather than using prize money to reward entries that bubble to the top of that peer review process, which are, in effect, already well-rewarded through the exposure they get, I want to use that same money to help reward valuable contributions that may not naturally rise as high in that system.
I know that some of the most valuable lessons posted online are the ones targeted at some specific set of students in a specific class, and that those risk coming across as underwhelming to the typically math-savvy SoME community members. So, in allocating prize money, I will specifically look for content that stands to be helpful in the classroom.
To be clear on my goal: I’m not saying everyone should try making classroom-aligned content. People should feel free and encouraged to make whatever online explainers they want to make. I’d like the peer review system to continue doing exactly what it has been in the last few years, and I feel confident that it will reward pieces that are generally thought-provoking and enriching for the lovable set of online math nerds comprising the SoME community.
In parallel, though, we’ll make a few additions to the system that make it easy for me to select 5 entries to reward as being particularly helpful for students, leaning particularly on the feedback coming from teachers.
How it will work
For those submitting an entry, if they feel it may be relevant to a particular class, they will be able to add tags to the entry to mark which courses it might be relevant to.
For those enrolling as peer review judges, they can mark if they are a teacher of some kind, and if it’s the case, provide some details before casting the first vote like what courses they have taught. As they judge a piece of content, in addition to the usual score and review that any peer reviewer would give, presumably based on how much they personally get out of it, when a tag on an entry indicates that it aligns with a course this teacher has taught, they can give it a separate score based on how helpful that piece would be to their classroom.
This separate score is not used in the peer review rankings. It will be something I take into account while gathering data to decide which pieces get the special prize money.
For example, say you are a high school calculus teacher. Maybe at some point in the process, you see a video about a paradox in probability that you like a lot. You would judge it just as any other peer judge would, and given that it’s not relevant to what you teach, you wouldn’t give it any additional score. Then, if you see another entry on integration by parts, tagged as being relevant to calculus, in addition to the usual review you give it, you could separately give it a score based on how helpful you think it could be for your students.
At the end of the summer, after the peer review process has taken place, I will look over the data and watch as many of the entries as I can, and decide which ones to allocate prizes to. I’ll consider how well it was scored among teachers in the relevant course, together with my own judgment as I watch it.
What precisely will I be looking for? While being agnostic to the specific course or the specific level, this will be the question on my mind: How likely is it that there will be a struggling student whose life becomes easier because they found this piece? Thanks to money kindly provided by Brilliant, I will award $1,000 to five separate entries.
Keep in mind, being helpful to students in a particular class is not necessarily at odds with what the broader SoME peer judges will enjoy. It’s very possible that a lesson demystifying trigonometric identities, say, is made interesting and engaging through examples that any viewer would enjoy, students and the broader public alike.
This autumn, in the video I put up on 3blue1brown to highlight the event, it’s very likely that in addition to highlighting the pieces receiving prize money, I will also mention videos from the broader contest that bubbled to the top of the peer review process that I personally enjoyed.
FAQ
I’m a bit confused about the way the review process is gonna work this year. Will teachers be judging submissions based on how useful it is as a lesson for their classroom? Or just how useful it is as a lesson in general?
They will have the option to do both. When a peer judge marks themselves as a teacher, they will be given an optional separate question for each piece, asking how helpful it would be for their classroom.
Is this an entirely separate scoring category, or is it all lumped together with the general review scores?
Consider it an entirely separate scoring category.
Question: Do “teachers” also include TAs or people with teaching experience? What about people with teaching experience (teacher and or TA), but is not currently teaching?
When you mark yourself as a “teacher” in the system, you can specify what type just before casting the fist vote, including teaching assistant or tutor. You can also mark whether you are currently teaching or if it’s in the past.
What kind of topics would be helpful to cover?
We asked teachers to discuss this question on this Reddit thread. The following is an AI-generated summary of what they discussed.
Based on this Reddit thread discussing what math topics would benefit from better online exposition, here’s a summary of the key themes and most-requested topics:
Main Themes from Teachers
Primary Issues Identified:
- Students lack intuitive understanding and see math as abstract rules to memorize
- Need for visual explanations that show why concepts work, not just how
- Gap between mathematical operations and real-world applications
- Students struggle with motivation - they don’t see why topics matter
Most Frequently Requested Topics
Foundation-Level Concepts (Ages 11-16):
- Variables and algebra - Students don’t understand that “x” represents an unknown value to find
- Fractions - Especially multiplication/division by fractions (what does “multiply by 1/2” mean?)
- Negative number multiplication - Why does (-1) × (-1) = 1?
- Ratio and proportion - Called “the single largest topic in all of math” by one teacher
Intermediate Concepts:
- Trigonometry intuition - Connecting circles, triangles, and periodic functions
- Complex numbers - Making them less intimidating for engineering/physics students
- Logarithms - Better visual/geometric explanations of logarithm identities
- Statistics and probability - Particularly counter-intuitive problems like Monty Hall
Advanced Topics:
- Linear algebra applications - Students learn procedures but don’t understand real-world uses
- Calculus concepts - Especially definite integration beyond just “area under curve”
- Differential equations - Slope fields and Euler’s method with visual intuition
Key Pedagogical Requests
Teachers emphasized needing content that:
- Shows mistakes and common student errors
- Uses “normal words” rather than mathematical jargon
- Connects to real-world applications students can relate to
- Provides motivation for why each topic matters
- Works well in classroom settings, not just for math enthusiasts
The overwhelming consensus was that the biggest need is for exposition that makes abstract concepts concrete and shows students that math is something they “could have invented themselves” rather than mysterious rules to memorize.