2014 ICT survey results
- Important Bird Area
- Forums Staff: Administrator
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
- Location: San Francisco Bay Area
- Contact:
2014 ICT survey results
are now available here.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF
"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF
"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
- Frater Taciturnus
- Auron
- Posts: 2463
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:26 pm
- Location: Richmond, VA
Re: 2014 ICT survey results
Just curious, would it be possible for the category questions (difficulty and distro) to see the split between DI and DII results, or is that not possible with the way the survey is done?
(Basically, I'm really wondering where the 12% that believes 8.9% Fine Arts is WAY TOO MUCH and the 4% who think that ICT Philosophy is TOO EASY come from.)
(Basically, I'm really wondering where the 12% that believes 8.9% Fine Arts is WAY TOO MUCH and the 4% who think that ICT Philosophy is TOO EASY come from.)
Janet Berry
[email protected]
she/they
--------------
J. Sargeant Reynolds CC 2008, 2009, 2014
Virginia Commonwealth 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
Douglas Freeman 2005, 2006, 2007
[email protected]
she/they
--------------
J. Sargeant Reynolds CC 2008, 2009, 2014
Virginia Commonwealth 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
Douglas Freeman 2005, 2006, 2007
Re: 2014 ICT survey results
So I think it's worth discussing a few of these results: hardness of literature and what the top four teams ppb should be.
1st point - I think that some of the literature questions are bit top-heavy, and that should be fixed; I just want to point out that it's not that the answer lines are too hard. For example, the "To His Coy Mistress" and Henry Adams tossups are perfectly fine if you just consider the answer line difficulty, but I think there needs to be better gradation of clues in both of those, especially in consideration of what the top and above average teams potentially know. I don't know if people who answered that survey are complaining about what I articulated or saying my tossup on Louis-Ferdinand Celine is too hard; I sure hope it's the former and boo-hoo if it's the latter.
2nd point - 20% of the field thinks that the top four teams ppb should be 25ppb - that's nuts. You really have to tone down bonus difficulty to the point of pretty much ACF Regionals if you want the top four teams to have a remote shot of hitting 25 ppb. (In fact, did any team break 25 ppb at Regionals this year?) Furthermore, NAQT requires knowledge in more topics than ACF Regionals - more current events, sports, geography, trash, etc - so much so that if you want the top 4 tams to have 25 ppb you have to make it significantly easier, to the point that you increase tournament variance.
1st point - I think that some of the literature questions are bit top-heavy, and that should be fixed; I just want to point out that it's not that the answer lines are too hard. For example, the "To His Coy Mistress" and Henry Adams tossups are perfectly fine if you just consider the answer line difficulty, but I think there needs to be better gradation of clues in both of those, especially in consideration of what the top and above average teams potentially know. I don't know if people who answered that survey are complaining about what I articulated or saying my tossup on Louis-Ferdinand Celine is too hard; I sure hope it's the former and boo-hoo if it's the latter.
2nd point - 20% of the field thinks that the top four teams ppb should be 25ppb - that's nuts. You really have to tone down bonus difficulty to the point of pretty much ACF Regionals if you want the top four teams to have a remote shot of hitting 25 ppb. (In fact, did any team break 25 ppb at Regionals this year?) Furthermore, NAQT requires knowledge in more topics than ACF Regionals - more current events, sports, geography, trash, etc - so much so that if you want the top 4 tams to have 25 ppb you have to make it significantly easier, to the point that you increase tournament variance.
Ike
UIUC 13
UIUC 13
Re: 2014 ICT survey results
Mike Hundley
PACE Member
Virginia Tech
PACE Member
Virginia Tech
Re: 2014 ICT survey results
Link fixed.fett0001 wrote:Dead link: http://www.naqt.com/downloads/2014-ict-survey.pdf
Jonah Greenthal
National Academic Quiz Tournaments
National Academic Quiz Tournaments
Re: 2014 ICT survey results
Fine arts amountFrater Taciturnus wrote:Just curious, would it be possible for the category questions (difficulty and distro) to see the split between DI and DII results, or is that not possible with the way the survey is done?
(Basically, I'm really wondering where the 12% that believes 8.9% Fine Arts is WAY TOO MUCH and the 4% who think that ICT Philosophy is TOO EASY come from.)
Division I: 28% much more, 23% more, 36% same, 8% less, 5% much less
Division II: 13% much more, 24% more, 33% same, 13% less, 16% much less
Philosophy difficulty
Division I: 21% too hard, 77% about right, 2% too easy
Division II: 12% too hard, 83% about right, 5% too easy
Jonah Greenthal
National Academic Quiz Tournaments
National Academic Quiz Tournaments