New York Times article
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:55 pm
Sponsored by the Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence (Twitter: @PACENSC)
https://hsquizbowl.org/forums/
Not exactly. While Ms. Kreloff (the sponsor who signed on with zero experience during the 02-03 year, replacing veteran sponsor Ms. Maturo) has helped our club in innumerable ways, the team's focus hasn't so much shifted, but intensified. I attribute most of our success the past few years to a simple increase in practice time and efficiency. Our predecessors may have taken the game a little less seriously, but that included knowledge as well as strategy. Then as now, essentially none of the players on our competitive teams study for the purpose of quiz bowl. So we never have focused on knowledge over strategy. We just didn't focus before.Howard wrote:But there was a string of a few years where TJ didn't win a game on It's Academic. It was my impression that this was mostly due to focusing too much on knowledge and not enough on strategy. In more recent years, I think the faculty sponsor has been more involved, and I believe the team has had a more balanced approach to strategy as well as knowledge, and is the primary reason TJ has seen more success on It's Academic as well as being recognized as probably the best team in the nation.
Wow. I perceived TJ as one of the most knowledgeable teams around at that time. The fact that you see a significant difference speaks volumes about TJ's abilities. If nothing else, this leaves me even more impressed with your current team.jewtemplar wrote:Our predecessors may have taken the game a little less seriously, but that included knowledge as well as strategy.
The fact that TJ didn't win It's Academic in years when they were the consensus #1 in the country, and the fact that it is possible to "focus too much on knowledge", say all that needs to be said about It's Academic.Howard wrote:I saw TJ at any number of tournaments and they always were a strong team. But there was a string of a few years where TJ didn't win a game on It's Academic. It was my impression that this was mostly due to focusing too much on knowledge and not enough on strategy.
Howard wrote:...It was my impression that this was mostly due to focusing too much on knowledge and not enough on strategy. In more recent years, I think the faculty sponsor has been more involved, and I believe the team has had a more balanced approach to strategy as well as knowledge, and is the primary reason TJ has seen more success on It's Academic as well as being recognized as probably the best team in the nation.
No, I'm not kidding. And you can't be seriously defining "good" analysis by its conclusion. Scientifically speaking, good analysis is based on actual analysis procedures, not preformed conclusions. That wouldn't be analysis, that would be statement.ImmaculateDeception wrote:You... have to be kidding, right? Your statement is, on its face, even, ridiculous. Laying aside the fact that any good analysis concludes that the acquisition of knowledge must be the primary end of playing quizbowl (winning at quizbowl in itself being a very tenuous and dubiously valuable end,) level of knowledge is and should be the primary determinant of skill at quizbowl.
Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not important or teams that focus more than 1% on strategy are not good teams. The importance of strategy does vary widely with format, and I agree that it is indeed of minimal importance on pyramidal questions. I further agree that it is desireable for games to be decided primarily on knowledge, but there are often circumstances which make it desireable to compete when that's not the case.ImmaculateDeception wrote:Moreover, no good team I've ever seen at any level has devoted more than 1% of its time to "strategy," the role of which in quizbowl is necessarily very limited anyway; rather, they focus on knowledge. In the mean, any good format game is won almost entirely by knowing more, faster, and this is as it should be.
And why should people nationally care about It's Academic? It's an odd format and I don't dispute for a moment that it correlates poorly to abilities in other formats or quiz bowl in general. While I agree there is some randomness, a significant noncursory study of format and questions can lead to a strategic approach giving a team significant advantage over others. It's been my experience that It's Academic is indeed a valid predictor of success on It's Academic.ImmaculateDeception wrote:Also, it is my experience that few, if any, people nationally care about It's Academic results. This is exactly because they're not valid predictors of success in other formats (or even rigorously valid measurements of goodness at quizbowl, or even It's Academic; the most cursory glance at the format and questions makes the randomness inherent in the results obvious.)
A partially valid point. There was indeed some assumption that TJ did take It's Academic seriously in the time period I mentioned, but this was based more on how seriously most other local schools took the competition than on my own personal opinions of its importance. The fact is that once you leave the top quiz bowl teams in the area (probably about the best 20% or so), nearly all teams see It's Academic as the most important academic competition. I agree this isn't in keeping with most of the nation, but it remains a fact that those teams in this are must weigh when assigning their own goals. Furthermore, I don't mean to imply that others should change their opinions to match mine nor am I attempting to cause such change. To some degree, however, I think it's unwise to bite the hand that feeds you. There is little question that It's Academic is the single largest factor in helping quiz bowl reach its level of popularity in the DC Metro area.ImmaculateDeception wrote:While I certainly understand that it is your local competition and you take it seriously, it would be unwise to assume that others therefore do, and unreasonable to expect them to.
No. Not at all. If the conclusion is true, than any good analysis must produce it. The quality of the conclusions an analysis produces is the exact and only determinant of its goodness, and that's what science is (theory is valid if and only if it reproduces experiment, you see.)Howard wrote:...you can't be seriously defining "good" analysis by its conclusion. Scientifically speaking, good analysis is based on actual analysis procedures, not preformed conclusions.
That's fine; as a normative statement, everyone knows it's true. However, what I a am positing is the positive statement that any format that systematically does not reward the more knowledgeable team (It's Academic, CBI, etc.) is a bad format for exactly that reason.Howard wrote: While I agree knowledge should be the primary determinant of quiz bowl success, we both know that's not necessarily the case.
Take THAT, straw man! Anyway, that does not address what I said about this, nor is what I said any less true.Howard wrote:Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not important or teams that focus more than 1% on strategy are not good teams.
My point actually was toward your implicit contention that TJ's inability to win at It's Academic prevented their being recognized as the best tem in the nation. As I'd already said, It's Academic results aren't heavily considered nationally. The fact that TJ themselves may not have cared is another interesting point, but is barely tangent (besides being something I have no knowledge of whatsoever.)Howard wrote:...There was indeed some assumption that TJ did take It's Academic seriously in the time period I mentioned, but this was based more on how seriously most other local schools took the competition than on my own personal opinions of its importance...
Howard wrote:The fact is that once you leave the top quiz bowl teams in the area (probably about the best 20% or so), nearly all teams see It's Academic as the most important academic competition.
Exactly. The problem is that there's insufficient evidence that your conclusion is true. I assert there are many reasons to play quiz bowl, only one of which is to obtain knowledge, and that other reasons are for competition and enjoyment. It's the individual quiz bowl player who determines the primary reason he/she plays. I further assert that your conclusion is NOT true, therefore a good analysis does not necessarily produce it.ImmaculateDeception wrote:No. Not at all. If the conclusion is true, than any good analysis must produce it. The quality of the conclusions an analysis produces is the exact and only determinant of its goodness, and that's what science is (theory is valid if and only if it reproduces experiment, you see.)
I agree with you on this point, as far as rewarding knowledge goes. In the case of It's Academic, however, it is also important to recognize that without it, quiz bowl would likely be worse in the DC Metro area than it is now, and that It's Academic would likely never survive on television with pyramidal questions.I.D. wrote:...what I a am positing is the positive statement that any format that systematically does not reward the more knowledgeable team (It's Academic, CBI, etc.) is a bad format for exactly that reason.
I thought your point was that teams who focused more than 1% on strategy were placing too much emphasis on strategy. I know teams (including some of my own previous teams) which were very competitive and were recognized regionally and nationally as good teams, which spend at least 10% of their efforts on strategy. Does this address your argument better? If not, I think I'm missing your point.I.D. wrote:Take THAT, straw man! Anyway, that does not address what I said about this, nor is what I said any less true.Howard wrote:Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not important or teams that focus more than 1% on strategy are not good teams.
I recall no such contention. And I apologize directly to TJ if it seemed that I was making such a contention. It is my opinion that the rest of the country couldn't care less about how frequently TJ wins/loses on It's Academic. My point was that failing to focus more on strategy helped prevent them from winning. Jewtemplar, however, has pointed out that their increased success in It's Academic (and other tournaments) is more related to taking all facets of the competition more seriously.I.D. wrote:My point actually was toward your implicit contention that TJ's inability to win at It's Academic prevented their being recognized as the best tem in the nation. As I'd already said, It's Academic results aren't heavily considered nationally. The fact that TJ themselves may not have cared is another interesting point, but is barely tangent (besides being something I have no knowledge of whatsoever.)
I don't think it contradicts my arguments. I don't think the opinions of the top fifth of the teams in the area should outweigh the other 80%. And I don't think the opinions of those teams should determine my opinions. My point is that in our region, teams are often judged by their performance on the aforementioned television show. As a coach, that's something I must consider. And it's also the reason I erroneously failed to consider that TJ may not have felt It's Academic was important. While my statement supports the idea that the majority of teams view It's Academic as the single most important academic tournament, it doesn't support my initial erroneous logic. I was attempting to illustrate that.iamsam wrote:Doesn't this contradict your argument?Howard wrote:The fact is that once you leave the top quiz bowl teams in the area (probably about the best 20% or so), nearly all teams see It's Academic as the most important academic competition.
Moreover, because you conceded that theHoward wrote:Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not important or teams that focus more than 1% on strategy are not good teams.
do not consider It's Academic to be that important, and the fact that you said that success in It's Academic was based much more on strategy--which is true considering the speed that is required in all television shows--it shows that the teams that focus more on strategy are not regionally "good" teams; you assert that some "nationally" acclaimed teams spend as much as 10% of their time on strategy, which teams are you talking about? With the immense amount of diversity in national question styles, I don't see how spending a lot of time on predicting when to buzz in on, let's say, NAQT questions would be a productive use of a team's time. It may be the case that the two variables are not related (skill vs. focus on strategy), but either way, it seems to be the case that they follow the pattern of the teams that do not tailor their playing style to work on strategies instead of actual knowledge are, in fact, better teams.Howard wrote:top quiz bowl teams in the area (probably about the best 20% or so)
Actually this says little about the top fifth of the teams by definition. It has some implication due to excluding the top fifth that not "nearly all" of them consider It's Academic the most important competition, but makes no implication that any of them don't consider it important. While I'm sure there are several schools who don't consider It's Academic important, I think even within the top fifth, most consider the television show an important competition, even if it isn't the most important.Howard wrote:The fact is that once you leave the top quiz bowl teams in the area (probably about the best 20% or so), nearly all teams see It's Academic as the most important academic competition.