Jerry Writes: > I feel compelled to speak out on this subject. > > 1) What "ultra-orthodox hard science lobby?" In case you haven't > noticed, there are not that many science players in qb. Most qb > players are humanities majors, and even those of us who are science > majors usually get most of our points from humanities stuff. I know > that I personally score about twice as many points from humanities > questions as I do from physics questions, and I know this is true > for most science players on the West Coast. It's just that physics > is two tossups and two bonuses per packet if I'm lucky. Fortunately, > I don't limit myself to just knowing physics. Not too long ago, most science fell under the rubrick of what was (and still is to some people) know as "Colvin Science." Geologic Time, Names of Subatomic Particles, Critters, Biomes, and Scientist biography questions, for example, all fell under this category of science answers that are accessibile to humanities players (like Matt Colvin) and that made hard science players bristle with anger as they were beaten out in their own subject-specialization by people who had 'no right' so-to-speak. Science players began to write harder questions about laws, math, etc. etc. that no non-science player would ever come across on PBS or at the local Science Museum. So, for instance, the finer points of field ionization and synchronous alternating-current generators replaced 'Quarks' and 'Boyles Law' in many cases, especially in ACF packs. And even questions on Boyles Law are always presented in a way that math/science people were sure to get them first. And as to who makes/made up the 'hard science lobby,' I can name a few...I played with with some of them. Joon Pahk and Paul Lujan, while they were at Harvard, would IMO fit into that category. Oh, how their eyes would roll every time the Frasch Process came up...;-) Any question that you didn't have to DO the experiment or the equation to get was taboo. > 2) There's a fundamental difference between the sciences and the > humanities with regards to the difficulty of each one. The fact is > that if you're a science student, it's much easier to learn a little > history and read some literature and become a good humanities player > as well than to do the reverse. I obviously speak for myself here, > but having never studied biology or chemistry at an advanced level, > questions on those subjects are usually just so much white noise to > me. I would imagine the reverse is true for someone whos studies > biology when they hear physics questions. Facility in the humanities > bespeaks a broad education; facility in the sciences is indicative > of a good knowledge of a narrow range of subjects. Therefore, it's > perfectly fine to write harder-than-average science questions > because once you get beyond the very basic concepts, you really do > need a specialized education to know more than that. However, > questions about modern art historians are not fine because the range > of humanities subjects is so broad that a well-rounded person can be > expected to know about artists and architects in general, but > shouldn't be expected to know about modern art historians. There's > so much general knowledge which can be asked about in the humanities > that you would do far better to try to exhaust that canon before you > go delving into the obscurata that come with specializing in the > field. Yes! That's precisely my point. So while science questions have grown inaccessible to to the non-scientist playing against the scientist, art history questions are almost always easily gettable by scientists playing again humanities people. I'm not saying that's necessarily a BAD thing -- I just wish the art history canon could expand to the point of not having to sit there and get beat out time and time again on innumerable Claes Oldenburg questions after "Sweedish" and/or "Soft" appear in the first line. It's just as annoying as a physicist hearing nothing but biography questions. As you implied in your response, physics will perhaps ALWAYS be less acessible to the humanities player than humanities questions will be to the physics player. But that doesn't mean art history, and humanities questions in general cannot aim more to appeal to the specialist by dealing with individuals who are EXTREMELY important (Clement Greenburg, for example) but not as well-known by people outside the field. That's a better solution than going back to having all science questions be gettable by any non-specialist who watches NOVA enough times. Although, personally, I wouldn't mind that at all :) Long live the Frasch Process. - Guy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST