<<so my guess is that a tournament using an ACF-like distribution is your best bet for some econ action>> The more I think about it, I think one of the biggest reason for all the angst over NAQT's underrepresentation of art/econ/social science and added focus on current events/general knowledge is fundamentally tied to its business operations. NAQT puts out 120 packets per year (4 IS _at_ 15 each, IMs, SCT & ICT _at_ 20 each), plus whatever state/contract work it does. So, for the sake of argument, let's say that they craft an equivalent of 150 packets per year. Of these, only 40 (SCT & ICT) are geared specifically at serious collegiate players. The rest are geared for HS and casual players. Fine arts and social sciences simply don't get much traction in HS or casual play, and there is a commensurate drop in their inclusion in relevant packets. So, if the majority of your business and profits come from writing sets that do not include much art/social science, why spend time writing an additional amount of material that doesn't necessarily add much economic value to your product? (Of course, there is also the argument that there are really only about 20 or so truly askable tossups in economics, and somewhat more in other social sciences. This argument does not apply to fine arts, making their non-inclusion all the more frustrating.) -- eps
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST