I'm reminded of that scene in one of my favorite feel-good movies, _Dead Poets' Society_. I think I would tweak this graph somewhat. There exists an upper and a lower bound to what is askable, depending on a variety of reasonably valid schemas of knowledge. Anything within the bounds is fair game. I know this will bug some people who want a more positivist version of quizbowl, but I think that describing a distribution within an allowable range is fairer and is also a more accurate description of how knowledge works. Anthony, who spent three years as an engineering major before switching to political science, but who thinks the most important thing he learned in engineering was the idea of a fudge factor....hey, that would make a cool tossup answer.... At 09:16 AM 2/12/02 PST, Ben wrote: >Consider, for both history and literature, a graph which shows quantity of "askable" material plotted against time. In both cases, the graph would be some upward-sloping curve as time approaches the present. > >In literature's case, the curve would be relatively steep, not withstanding a slight peak during Greco-Roman times. In history's case, it would be much more gentle. Then, one could integrate and calculate percentages of questions which should be asked within various time spans. > >Of course, this would not be smooth curve and would be very subjective. For example, one might be inclined to tweak the history curve in favor of more recent history since quizbowlers are bound to know much more about 19th-century American than 5th-century Chinese. (Not to mention that man knows much more "period" about the former than the latter.) And for literature, some grouchy lad/lass might feel that 20th-century (do I hear "Hemingway" or "Paz"?) literature isn't worth nearly as much as people think. (I do not necessarily espouse either of those viewpoints.) > >Ultimately, it is a POV thing, and many packets which would strike me as being particularly well or badly "integrated" over time might strike you the other way. i.e. there's no accounting for tastes. > >For what it's worth, my gut feeling is that somewhere between 25% and 33% of literature questions should cover 20th-century lit and from 15% to 23% should treat 20th-century history. I'm not sure how close that is to your typical NAQT (or ACF) packet.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST