Discussion of graduate student eligibility
This page is intended to summarize common arguments raised during discussion of graduate student eligibility.
Discussion
An important aspect to remember when participating in such discussions is that there is nothing intrinsically exceptional or unfair about being a graduate student. Grad students are not a monolith. Though their detractors typically focus on specific players that are considered too old or too good or to have played too long, there are plenty of other grad students who don't meet any of these criteria.
Thus, it is most relevant to focus on the two aspects that lie at the heart of all of these discussions:
- how to handle players who are too good
- how to handle players who are too old
Because neither of these things are actually related to being enrolled in graduate school these topics also appear when discussing other kinds of demarcation problem, like "who gets to be an undergraduate", "who is a novice", or "what counts as a small school".
Skill
The most common complaint issued against grad students is that they are too good. As previously stated, it is untrue to say that all grad students are too good - even if many are, there are plenty that are not. However, it is true that many of the best players in quiz bowl have been grad students. Indeed, several nationals winning teams have been led by top players who returned to grad school after a multiple year hiatus.
In any given year, both the top scorers and the players on top 10 teams at ACF Nationals have roughly equal odds to be an undergrad or not. This ratio was skewed more towards undergraduates before the pandemic. There have been many undergraduates who outcompeted graduate students, Jordan Brownstein perhaps being the exemplar. Matt Bollinger and Matt Jackson were also exceptionally good as undergraduates but later returned as good or better as grad students, making them an example of both perspectives.
| Pro-restriction argument | Anti |
|---|---|
|
The existence of players/teams who are "too good" (by some definition) is a negative to other teams. Commonly cited reasons include that winning nationals needs to be a realistic goal to be motivation, a general desire for individual teams to not be consistently dominant, and the idea of quiz bowl being an "amateur" competition. This attitude is more common among the lower skill brackets that make up the "silent majority" of the player base, meaning that it would be in the interests of the community to limit eligibility for good players. Players who express anecdata to the contrary have been biased by their ability to tolerate this hostile competitive environment. |
It is unclear what the average response to having teams who are "too good" is. At least some people have expressed that they view it as neutral or positive and it would be unreasonable to reject their opinions just because they are enfranchised enough to participate in an open discussion, especially in appeal to the undefinable opinions of a silent portion of the community. Any argument for removing grad students should directly address why being a grad student specifically is a problematic category because limiting player skill is not a coherent reason to limit eligibility. Removing good players because they are good creates mickey mouse championships and compromises the competitive nature of the game. |
It may be tempting to substitute "grad student" in for "too good" but these arguments are ultimately true of all relative skill differences. Their relevance depends on the extent to which one believes that career length, coursework, and/or motivation of grad students allows them (or causes them) to become more skilled - this will be further discussed in the next section.
Some people have proposed creating separate "undergraduate" and "collegiate open" divisions rather than banning grad students. Though largely a relabeling, this change could come with an elevated prestige for undergraduate competitions like the UCT.
Age
There are several age-related facets to people's issues with grad students:
- more time playing is unfair because it provides more time to get good
- more time playing is unfair because not everyone gets to play that long
- actual ageism
Time to get good
The relationship between time as a grad student and time to get good is tenuous at best and have also been discussed (with anecdata) in the "back to the classroom" article.
Positive contributors to skill over time include more years alive and aware for people to acquire "real knowledge", as well as an opportunity for additional coursework. However, the vast size of the quiz bowl canon means that these benefits are minimal and the most important predictor of "being good at quiz bowl" remains "trying to be good at quiz bowl" - that is, studying. The biggest negative is memory loss and other forms of rust, which can easily outpace any new knowledge.
It is difficult to quantify but the anecdata suggest that the average grad student studies much less than their undergraduate counterpart due to being much busier. It has even been proposed that the most players peak in skill in their final years of undergraduate, with a gradual decline from that point onward. Even in cases where players peak as grad students it is not always just due to "more time" - it is occasionally possible to identify individual study binges (often before classes start) as responsible for much of their improvement.
Time to play
Perhaps the least fair aspect of quiz bowl is that some players get to play longer. It's probably comparable to the unfairness involved in enrolling in a school that may or may not have a strong program. It is difficult to ascertain whether these can be mitigated without some sort of Harrison Bergeron scenario in which everyone is Levelled.
As discussed in the previous section it cannot be taken as a given that these players will be better than otherwise. Therefore it's not necessarily the problem that these players always win - it is often an aesthetic displeasure in seeing the same names and the selfish desire to be in the same position. These are both somewhat shallow critiques but have a kernel of truth to them: why do some deserve more?
It is generally assumed that players do not choose to enroll in grad school solely to extend their career (though it undoubtedly plays some role in their decision) - after all, one would have to be a little insane to get a PhD just to answer silly questions. However, many players take advantage of the opportunity to start studying again, essentially starting a second career.
Ageism
Some of the discussion about grad students is literally ageist.
Now, it must be conceded that this is far from the only example of ageism in quiz bowl: older players insult high schoolers, high schoolers insult college players, and so on. Assuming everyone stays within the bounds of decency, this is a fairly normal aspect of community discourse: in-groups form, attack an out-group, and the out-group bonds in response. However, categorically dismissing a demographic based on their age does not an argument make - a non-zero number of criticisms can thus be discussed out of hand.
Grad students are, broadly speaking, peers of undergraduates in both quiz bowl and broader society. They are playing the same game and are typically within a few years in age. Though there are of course boundaries between them (as there are between any two groups) they are not unrelatable aliens. Discussions should stay cognizant of the similarities between these groups, not just the differences.