Difference between revisions of "Back to the classroom"
Kevin Wang (talk | contribs) m (→Discussion) |
|||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
This is a direct consequence of the choice to make quiz bowl's measure of "importance" based on academia, as well the original "back to the classroom" movement itself. | This is a direct consequence of the choice to make quiz bowl's measure of "importance" based on academia, as well the original "back to the classroom" movement itself. | ||
| − | The major advantage of sourcing clues from "the classroom" is that they are more generally more "important" - however, it is | + | The major advantage of sourcing clues from "the classroom" is that they are more generally more "important" - however, it is key to remember that this is somewhat tautological and not synonymous with "well-known" or (more to the point) convertible, meaning that it is possible (and honestly very easy) to produce questions that accurately reflect a hypothetical member of academia but no actual quiz bowl players. |
Modern critics of the "back to the classroom" idea are typically referring to this phenomenon. | Modern critics of the "back to the classroom" idea are typically referring to this phenomenon. | ||
| − | Another downside of this idea is that mirroring the classroom does not represent a complete vision of what the canon should look like. Even in subjects like science where it is possible to choose many topics that people can answer directly based on their coursework, there are not enough to fill the distro nor will these topics cover everything that is important, interesting, or otherwise worth asking about. | + | Another downside of this idea is that mirroring the classroom does not represent a complete vision of what the canon should look like. Even in subjects like science where it is possible to choose many topics that people can answer directly based on their coursework, there are not enough to fill the distro nor will these topics cover everything that is important, interesting, or otherwise worth asking about. As a result, even advocates of a "back to the classroom" approach will use it as one tool in a kit with other options. |
| − | It is basically never accurate to say that the quiz bowl [[canon]] will (or should) overlap with any particular person's learning: one's experiences | + | It is basically never accurate to say that the quiz bowl [[canon]] will (or should) overlap with any particular person's learning: one's experiences knowing or not knowing something cannot be generalized, even when focusing on just this one specific avenue. One issue is that one's coursework will almost never span the curriculum of a major, but the more pressing one is that the canon is (and must be) much larger than just the set of all facts in all curricula. This means that it is always the case that anyone who wants to know a large fraction of the quiz bowl canon (i.e. become good) will have to do so entirely outside the classroom (i.e. study for quiz bowl). |
| − | Despite this general rule of thumb, the actual relationship between a subject and its corresponding curriculum varies from major to major. STEM majors, | + | Despite this general rule of thumb, the actual relationship between a subject and its corresponding curriculum varies from major to major. STEM majors, especially physics and math, tend to have much more ability to buzz on their classwork, while literature and history majors fare the worst in this metric. The most extreme outliers are med students, who spend all their time reviewing flashcards on atomic facts that also happen to make up ~0.4/0.4 of every packet. |
The following is a collection of anecdata volunteered by various people in response to recent discussions about whether the classroom is a good source of clues: | The following is a collection of anecdata volunteered by various people in response to recent discussions about whether the classroom is a good source of clues: | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[Andrew Wang]] | | [[Andrew Wang]] | ||
| − | | undergrad | + | | undergrad chemistry + physics minor + Anking |
|data-sort-value=9.8| 5/51 (9.8%) at [[NAFTA]]<ref>[https://hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=410961#p410961 Re: What Exactly is Grad Student Dominance?] by [[Good Goblin Housekeeping]] » Sun Mar 08, 2026 1:47 pm</ref> | |data-sort-value=9.8| 5/51 (9.8%) at [[NAFTA]]<ref>[https://hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=410961#p410961 Re: What Exactly is Grad Student Dominance?] by [[Good Goblin Housekeeping]] » Sun Mar 08, 2026 1:47 pm</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
| [[Henry Atkins]] | | [[Henry Atkins]] | ||
| poli sci + english undergrad + grad school | | poli sci + english undergrad + grad school | ||
| − | |data-sort-value= | + | |data-sort-value=6.3| 4/63 (6.3%) at [[WAO III]]<ref>i did this for wao iii (discounting negs) |
Writing/Editing questions - 6/4/0 | Writing/Editing questions - 6/4/0 | ||
Things I just kinda knew - 1/10/0 | Things I just kinda knew - 1/10/0 | ||
| Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[Ryan Rosenberg]] | | [[Ryan Rosenberg]] | ||
| − | | | + | | political science |
|data-sort-value=1.5| 1/65 (1.5%) at Regs<ref>from Regs | |data-sort-value=1.5| 1/65 (1.5%) at Regs<ref>from Regs | ||
12 mindless packet studying | 12 mindless packet studying | ||
| Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[Mattias Ehatamm]] | | [[Mattias Ehatamm]] | ||
| − | | | + | | Computer Science, Math |
|data-sort-value=4| 2/50 (4%) at [[NAFTA]]<ref>NAFTA Buzzes (n=50) | |data-sort-value=4| 2/50 (4%) at [[NAFTA]]<ref>NAFTA Buzzes (n=50) | ||
carded: 29 | carded: 29 | ||
| Line 208: | Line 208: | ||
[https://discord.com/channels/275279348855209984/275279348855209984/1480643290918555669]</ref> | [https://discord.com/channels/275279348855209984/275279348855209984/1480643290918555669]</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | [[Albert Nyang]] | + | | [[Albert Nyang Ying Zhi]] |
| − | | | + | | Maths and Economics |
|data-sort-value=3.0| 2/67 (3.0%) at Regs<ref>Regs (Excluding Rebounds) | |data-sort-value=3.0| 2/67 (3.0%) at Regs<ref>Regs (Excluding Rebounds) | ||
packet study 28 | packet study 28 | ||
Latest revision as of 21:34, 11 March 2026
The desire to explicitly align collegiate quiz bowl with the curriculum (and with academia) is often termed the back to the classroom movement.
There are two main justifications given for this:
- classrooms generally choose to discuss important topics, meaning that covering the same things (in similar ways) is a good way to ensure those subjects are asked
- this is a potential avenue for quiz bowlers to learn material from outside the game, which is generally considered more "real" and thus better
In modern usage the term is often used disparagingly to refer to questions which focus on academia at the expense of playability.
History
The phrase was coined to describe the approach taken in 2011 MAGNI[1] and is generally held to have been most significant in reforming science in the early 2010s, where a desire to vaguely align more with what people learn in coursework provided a practical framework for the category to exit the morass it was in the late 2000s. This underlying philosophy likely also played a role in contemporaneous changes to the distribution like the creation of thought, the idea of modern world content, and a decreased emphasis on myth.
Discussion
As an explicitly academic activity, the topics in quiz bowl have considerable overlap with the standard high school and collegiate curriculum. This is a direct consequence of the choice to make quiz bowl's measure of "importance" based on academia, as well the original "back to the classroom" movement itself.
The major advantage of sourcing clues from "the classroom" is that they are more generally more "important" - however, it is key to remember that this is somewhat tautological and not synonymous with "well-known" or (more to the point) convertible, meaning that it is possible (and honestly very easy) to produce questions that accurately reflect a hypothetical member of academia but no actual quiz bowl players. Modern critics of the "back to the classroom" idea are typically referring to this phenomenon.
Another downside of this idea is that mirroring the classroom does not represent a complete vision of what the canon should look like. Even in subjects like science where it is possible to choose many topics that people can answer directly based on their coursework, there are not enough to fill the distro nor will these topics cover everything that is important, interesting, or otherwise worth asking about. As a result, even advocates of a "back to the classroom" approach will use it as one tool in a kit with other options.
It is basically never accurate to say that the quiz bowl canon will (or should) overlap with any particular person's learning: one's experiences knowing or not knowing something cannot be generalized, even when focusing on just this one specific avenue. One issue is that one's coursework will almost never span the curriculum of a major, but the more pressing one is that the canon is (and must be) much larger than just the set of all facts in all curricula. This means that it is always the case that anyone who wants to know a large fraction of the quiz bowl canon (i.e. become good) will have to do so entirely outside the classroom (i.e. study for quiz bowl).
Despite this general rule of thumb, the actual relationship between a subject and its corresponding curriculum varies from major to major. STEM majors, especially physics and math, tend to have much more ability to buzz on their classwork, while literature and history majors fare the worst in this metric. The most extreme outliers are med students, who spend all their time reviewing flashcards on atomic facts that also happen to make up ~0.4/0.4 of every packet.
The following is a collection of anecdata volunteered by various people in response to recent discussions about whether the classroom is a good source of clues:
| Person | Major | Fraction of correct buzzes from classwork |
|---|---|---|
| Kevin Wang | chem + computer science | 0/126 (0%)[2] |
| Brendan Bethlehem | linguistics | 1/37 (5.4%) @ NAFTA[3] |
| Andrew Wang | undergrad chemistry + physics minor + Anking | 5/51 (9.8%) at NAFTA[4] |
| Forrest Weintraub | astrophysics degree with math minor + intro chem sequence + graduate physical cosmology class | 23/48 (47.9%) at various "hard (m)ACF tournaments"[5] |
| Billy Busse | chemical engineering degree with physics minor + med school | 6/33 (18.2%) at NAFTA [6] |
| Ariel Faeder | 6/60 (10%) at Regs[7] 13/189 (6.9%) including Penn Bowl, NAFTA, Argos[8] | |
| John Lawrence | music | 2/65 (3.1%) at NAFTA ("the least classes have ever helped me")[9] |
| Henry Atkins | poli sci + english undergrad + grad school | 4/63 (6.3%) at WAO III[10] |
| Naveed Chowdhury | 0/16 (0%) at NAFTA[11] | |
| Subhamitra Banerjee Roychoudhury | econ + public policy + data science | 4/38 (10.5%) @ NAFTA[12] |
| Jeremy Cummings | math | 5/19 (26.3%) at NAFTA[13] |
| Ryan Rosenberg | political science | 1/65 (1.5%) at Regs[14] |
| Mattias Ehatamm | Computer Science, Math | 2/50 (4%) at NAFTA[15] |
| Joel Miles | 10/296 (3.4%) at 2 Nats, ARGOS, and NAFTA[16] | |
| Albert Nyang Ying Zhi | Maths and Economics | 2/67 (3.0%) at Regs[17] |
References
- ↑ Re: General Thoughts by Auroni » Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:34 pm
- ↑ personal correspondence
- ↑ NAFTA (n= 37): 9 – academic based media i consume (podcasts or youtube) 8 – (pre-)giveaways 4 – the voice told me the answer 3 – family circumstances 3 – unintentional quizbowl osmosis 3 – questions i've written 1 – instagram reels 1 – editing wikipedia 1 – linguistics degree 1 – linguistics knowledge unrelated to my actual degree 1 – linguistics based fraud 1 – intentional learning for quizbowl purposes [1]
- ↑ Re: What Exactly is Grad Student Dominance? by Good Goblin Housekeeping » Sun Mar 08, 2026 1:47 pm
- ↑ Re: What Exactly is Grad Student Dominance? by forrestw » Sun Mar 08, 2026 10:45 am
- ↑ Re: What Exactly is Grad Student Dominance? by touchpack » Sun Mar 08, 2026 7:59 am
- ↑ did this exercise for all my non-rebound 10s from regs it's pretty fun > packet study/clue osmosis 31 > class 6 > youtube 6 > general knowledge 5 > reading for pleasure 4 > non-packet study 2 > twitter 2 > movie i watched 2 > going to a museum 1 > just guessed 1 [2]
- ↑ added penn bowl, nafta, and argos > packet study/clue osmosis 98 > youtube 18 > general knowledge 17 > reading for pleasure 14 > class 13 > girlfriend taught me the clue 8 > movie i watched 7 > podcast 4 > non-packet study 3 > being jewish 2 > twitter 2 > going to a museum 1 > just guessed 1 > lived in the city being tossed up 1 [3]
- ↑ This is a fun idea. Just did this exercise for NAFTA: Total number of correct buzzes: 65 === Learned in class: 2 Learned from quizbowl question I wrote/edited: 3 Learned from prior quizbowl questions I played, but not in my cards: 13 Learned from cards I made for quizbowl: 19 Learned from a source outside of quizbowl or class: 28 [4]
- ↑ i did this for wao iii (discounting negs) Writing/Editing questions - 6/4/0 Things I just kinda knew - 1/10/0 Clue osmosis - 2/16/0 Dedicated qb study - 1/3/0 Readin' books - 3/6/0 Watchin' movies - 2/0/0 Christian upbringing - 0/3/0 Visiting historical locations within driving distance of Alexandria, VA - 1/1/0 Undergrad coursework (poli sci) - 0/1/0 Undergrad coursework (english) - 0/2/0 Grad school - 0/1/0 [5]
- ↑ with the caveat that I did not do well at NAFTA: total correct buzzes: 16 general geography knowledge: 5 (Gambia River, Karnataka, hot springs, St. Louis, amrita) Wikipedia: 5 (Los Angeles, Toronto, Norman Mailer, Victoria, German Christians) general news awareness: 2 (BYD, men) general cultural knowledge: 1 (angels) watching movies outside of class: 1 (Sweden) reading about movies outside of class: 1 (Roberto Rossellini) guessed: 1 (Buenos Aires) [6]
- ↑ my buzzes from nafta, as far as I recall where I learned things: class - 0/4 (1 each undergrad econ, undergrad public policy, undergrad data science, high school phys or chem) from quizbowl question(s) I played (clue osmosis) - 0/2 reading outside class/quizbowl - 7/25 [7]
- ↑ Missing a few but for NAFTA I'm 5 - class 5 - non-class academic-adjacent interest 4 - saying what words mean 2 - direct music listening (surprising to me because this is usually much higher on forrest's questions in particular) 2 - quizbowl knowledge 1 - vibe/fraud [8]
- ↑ from Regs 12 mindless packet studying 11 writing/editing questions 11 non-mindless packet studying 9 general knowledge 9 heard the clue before ("quizbowl osmosis") 3 being online 2 my travels around America 2 job 2 idk I just guessed 1 Susan Ferrari Facebook posts 1 undergrad class 1 reading fiction 1 listening to NPR [9]
- ↑ NAFTA Buzzes (n=50) carded: 29 osmosis/gk: 6 reading the news: 2 watching movies: 2 reading books/watching theatre: 7 undergraduate courses (2 math, 2 latin): 4 [10]
- ↑ since other people are now tallying their buzz sources i extended the numbers i previously put together for the past two acf nats out of personal curiosity to the last four hard tournaments i've played (those two nationals plus argos and nafta). i don't power very many questions but i reckon almost all of my powers are from having read something, written a question on the answer, or having personal experience with something clued (like that argos tu on revelations i powered off joy having told me about one of the early clues). gets: osmosis/packet study - 89 reading something - 50 general knowledge - 50 figured it out/fraud - 39 encountered online (wikipedia/twitter/youtube mostly) - 20 classes - 10 writing/editing questions - 9 "cultural osmosis," by which i mean "most people in my general media and physical environment probably would buzz on this clue, but i doubt it's general knowledge" - 7 other - 22 (mostly lingfraud, knowing where somewhere was on a map, learning a clue from a friend, or a personal experience not in the above categories) virtually all my late buzzes are under the "osmosis" or "general knowledge" headers. most of my negs, of which i had 62 across the sample, are from bad binaries derived from past packet study or believing i had heard the clue i buzzed on in a question on the thing i negged with. secondary contributors include bad attempts at fraud, getting timed out by the mod after being unable to pull in time, or just getting confused for no apparent reason. [11]
- ↑ Regs (Excluding Rebounds) packet study 28 reading lit 12 general knowledge 11 writing/editing questions 5 unintentional osmosis 5 pure vibes 4 schoolwork 2 Noticing a lot of people who write/edit a lot not getting a ton of buzzes from that [12]
