> And though I have not taken Quantum Physics, neither Davisson-Germer > nor Franck-Hertz is extrordinarily difficult. Both are in the canon > and have been answers before. I also believe that both are relatively > important in the history of physics so maybe your crew of physicists > should figure out what is in the quiz bowl canon, or just get your > quantum teacher(s) to explain those experiements to you. > > As for the questions they were not without mistakes and the > distribution may not have been ideal but considering the > circumstances I believe Samer did a good job with what he had. I > believe that anyone who is tempted to bitch about the question > quality should take a moment to consider whether or not they have > attempted to do it before, and hence have any idea of the magnitude > of the job they are criticizing. I don't recall Dan Passner or Jordan- > Boyd Graber editting anything for the college level let alone 19 > packets for a event with >45 teams. > > Chris Romero There seem to be some fundamentally flawed points in Chris' main assertion. Not having edited a large-field tournament does not bar one from criticizing a product that he or she has paid for. Is that really an argument that Chris expects people to take seriously. Do CalTech and Brandeis have to edit tournaments featuring 40 plus teams before they are qualified, no given the right, to critique their Penn Bowl experience. Obviously not. After all, Penn charges the highest tournament fees in the country (I know there are discounts available), and the teams that pay those fees should not be taken to task for demanding excellence in question structure, lack of repeats, an acceptable diversity of subject matter, and the use of some of their questions. Inanities about the relative importance of Jewish literature and South American literature aside (By the way, no one's running to their computer to write Herman Wouk or Chaim Potok tossups; maybe if either had written a good novel) The notion that editing such a large tournament absolves one of some of the criticism for a less than stellar product is foolish and not helpful. If you take in a few thousand dollars, you have an obligation to deliver. In addition, this is not a new tournament. It has a clearly established tradition (though not of good questions) and is represented by an individual who purports to be a good editor. For a quality tournament with a large number of teams look no further than Michigan's MLK of the past couple of years. This year Adam Kemezis and his fellow editors produced a fine set of packets, many of which were generated from inexperienced teams. I know Penn Bowl had several more teams, but there is no reason that the principle does not hold for 28, 48, or 68 teams. That Samer and his fellow editors have fallen short of this obligation consistently (I've seen the questions for four out of the last five Penn Bowls; last year was decent) should be no surprise to veteran teams or players. Yet, that does not deprive them (or new teams) of their right to express their criticisms and/or general dissatisfaction. I think many repeat attendees to Penn Bowl come for the large and geographically diverse field and the opportunity to play some tough competition in the latter stages of the tournament (disregarding the advantages and flaws of the various playoff formats). Certainly, those are the reasons why I went a couple of times. I never went for the questions, as I expected mediocrity and was pleasantly surprised if I found otherwise. As a result, I never felt the need to complain about the questions, but I don't begrudge other teams their ability to do so. At least not on the grounds that their circuit pedigree (the implication behind not having the experience of running such a large scale tournament) disqualifies them from doing so. If Chris were going to take issue with the points raised, he would have been better served doing so with individual questions (as he did with the beginning of his post), with the silly notion that hosts are required to provide breakfast, or why a tossup on William Williams was and never will be a good idea . One last point. Having played for a few years, I have heard Stern-Gerlach and Davisson-Germer come up as both tossup and bonus answers and have a dim recognition of the other experiment. This does not mean that those three experiments are legitimate subject matter for the same Penn Bowl bonus. They very well could be, but I'm more inclined to give credence to the claim of several quantum physics students at Cal Tech than a graduate student at Texas A&M or Chicago. They could be wrong, but Chris' response was dismissive and uncalled for. Subash
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST