--- In quizbowl_at_y..., "bucktowntiger" <jdh22_at_c...> wrote: > > On expertise: I perceived disgust among some posts concerning the > writing of questions by non-experts in the subject field, especially > science questions written by non-science experts. There are other > ways to gain expertise in a field (at least quizbowl-worthy > expertise), namely by studying the right sources and *writing > questions.* The term "major" was used in preceding posts, and I > adopted the term "major" to illustrate my point that one should not > have to read the whole Mahabharata to write a good tossup on it. Just keep in mind that while there are some truly horrendously written questions, there are also some people who think they are "all that" and get upset at any question within their supposed area of expertise that slips through their grasps. I've been around long enough to realize that no one can be an expert in an entire subject matter. Take biology, for example. I know people both inside and out of quizbowl whose academic interest is in organismal biology. Then, there are players recognized as quizbowl experts in biology who grumble about any question on an animal, no matter how well written. Even though the subject matter is clearly academic and of interest to at least some academic-minded people. Sometimes, people get so full of themselves that they need to be taken down a peg with reasonable questions on things they might not love within their favorite discipline. > I agree that using sources verbatim is a bad practice, but if > quizbowl lashes out against the total use of concise reference > sources (Benet's included), then the process of submitting an > acceptable packet will be like writing fifty or more in-depth > research papers. Surely no team wants to do that for each > tournament. Also, this lashing-out against the use of non-primary > reference sources will discourage young players from writing > questions and improving their quizbowl aptitude out of fear of being > prosecuted by Britannica and spending their prime reproductive years > in a forced-labor camp. On a certain level, "straight-out-of-Benet's" is somewhat acceptable for novice college or easy to intermediate high school, in the sense that you might as well let them learn the stock clues at some point. > Besides, which is better for improving quizbowl aptitude: reading > two hundred short literature summaries and learning a little bit > about each work, so that one is able to answer a question on any of > the two-hundred works somewhere around the "for ten points" mark; or > reading four full-length novels in-depth, so that one is able to > answer questions on those four works in the first sentence? > > Not counting bonus conversion, I think the first method would win > 2000 to 40. Better for quizbowl aptitude, up to a certain point. It'd be more worth your while from a quizbowl perspective to read eight novels like you would on the beach during summer. I've taken lit classes that were basically a novel or play every week or two, so that pace is not difficult if you're not reading for deep comprehension for the purpose of writing a paper on the book. I'd say that, if books are your thing, read wide enough to find out what you like, then read what you like, and if you have a lit reference, read first the entries on things you have read. Then dig into the lit reference. If you are a true lit type, you will probably eventually try to get around to reading every entry that looks interesting, if you haven't already. If you occasionally enjoy a book, you'll probably remember just the things you want to read. And if you don't care at all about books, try to punt lit to a teammate and if you want to work at quizbowl and actually prepare, don't waste your time toiling on something uninteresting to you. Anthony, who just finished a novel by a Booker Prize winning novelist (not the one that won) and who may try to write a tossup on it despite never having seen it come up
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST