Regarding Studying and Practicing

[bluepolicebox]

I have a few quick questions that I was hoping someone could help me with.

1. I don't really understand the purpose of studying NAQT "You Gotta Know" articles or reading Wikipedia. What is the purpose for doing either of these things if you can simply read question packets or practice on Protobowl?

2. I also do not understand why it is better to practice in a private room on Protobowl rather than in the lobby. Many times I have heard people say that players in the lobby have already memorized the answers, which gives you unfair competition and can be demoralizing. But isn't it better to practice against difficult competition? Why is this a bad thing?

3. Is it better to practicing working on individual skills (e.g. buzzer speed, memory recall, etc.), or should I focus on practicing in a match-style format?

[vinteuil]

I have a few quick questions that I was hoping someone could help me with.

1. I don't really understand the purpose of studying NAQT "You Gotta Know" articles or reading Wikipedia. What is the purpose for doing either of these things if you can simply read question packets or practice on Protobowl?

2. I also do not understand why it is better to practice in a private room on Protobowl rather than in the lobby. Many times I have heard people say that players in the lobby have already memorized the answers, which gives you unfair competition and can be demoralizing. But isn't it better to practice against difficult competition? Why is this a bad thing?

3. Is it better to practicing working on individual skills (e.g. buzzer speed, memory recall, etc.), or should I focus on practicing in a match-style format?

1. I can't speak to "You Gotta Knows," but you can almost always get a better summary of the information you're trying to learn from a source other than packets—good luck getting a plot summary or an adequate understanding of a scientific phenomenon from a quizbowl question.

2. If you're trying to study a specific subject or mix of subjects, then this is better. Better still is just reading textbooks, literature, wikipedia, or packets.

3. I don't think any quizbowler ever has won a serious match by "practicing buzzer speed" or "practicing memory recall" (how would this be done?).

[Ndg]

1. My opinion of these resources is that they can be starting points if you know basically nothing about a subject. So, for example, if you are totally ignorant of economics, it might be helpful to read through the "you gotta know" page on economists. But you're right to say that doing that won't get you very far.

2. Practicing in a private room is better because you get to see the entire question. Seeing questions about things you've never heard of but not getting to see the giveaway at the end of the questions is not a productive way to learn about things. I think a better way is to go at your own pace, and when you encounter things that are new to you, pausing to look them up.

Also, competing against players who have already seen the clues before is not simulating real competition. Real competition tests knowledge, not memorization of the wording of questions.

3. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "individual skills"---It's best to focus your efforts on actual studying. While there can be strategies about the aggressiveness of your buzzing (maybe this is what you're getting at?), the surest way to win games is to have more knowledge than your opponents.

[zachary_yan]

I think the problem is that people think that "quizbowl knowledge" is somehow mutually exclusive from "real knowledge". A lot of people also are frustrated when they've studied something from a non-packet source it doesn't come up. Also unless your playing , in the long run buzzer skills or "individual skills" are far less important than solid knowledge, although they still shouldn't be neglected. Reading sources like wikipedia and books get you more depth whereas and packet study and lists help get you acquainted with a wider expanse of the canon so both are important.