Human Bio

Old college threads.
Locked
User avatar
bmcke
Wakka
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:47 pm

Human Bio

Post by bmcke » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:37 pm

I have a teammate studying health science (maybe it's kinesiology) who feels kind of slighted that she doesn't hear many human biology questions in practice or tournaments. I don't know if there's any specific constitution or mission statement that explains ACF or NAQT distribution, but is it possible that human bio gets under-represented in quizbowl sometimes, given the space it takes up in academic thought? I've also heard the theory that health subjects might get marginalized because more men than women are involved in quizbowl.

(Also fun to think about is if the popular degrees ran quizbowl: 4/4 Business, 4/4 Nursing, 2/2 Education, etc.)
Last edited by bmcke on Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Brendan McKendy
University of Ottawa 2011
Ontario QBA 2019

User avatar
Sima Guang Hater
Auron
Posts: 1853
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Human Bio

Post by Sima Guang Hater » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:42 pm

What's your conception of human bio?
Eric Mukherjee, MD PhD
Washburn Rural High School, 2005
Brown University, 2009
Medical Scientist Training Program, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 2018
Intern in Internal Medicine, Yale-Waterbury, 2018-9
Dermatology Resident, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2019-

Member Emeritus, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer, NAQT, NHBB, IQBT

"The next generation will always surpass the previous one. It's one of the never-ending cycles in life."

User avatar
bmcke
Wakka
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:47 pm

Re: Human Bio

Post by bmcke » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:47 pm

I actually have no idea.
Brendan McKendy
University of Ottawa 2011
Ontario QBA 2019

User avatar
Sima Guang Hater
Auron
Posts: 1853
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Human Bio

Post by Sima Guang Hater » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:00 pm

This thread's going nowhere fast then.

I think most biology that's tossed up is human-centered (at least the way I write it). If your friend wants to see like, anatomy questions in quizbowl, I would be strongly opposed to that.
Eric Mukherjee, MD PhD
Washburn Rural High School, 2005
Brown University, 2009
Medical Scientist Training Program, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 2018
Intern in Internal Medicine, Yale-Waterbury, 2018-9
Dermatology Resident, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2019-

Member Emeritus, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer, NAQT, NHBB, IQBT

"The next generation will always surpass the previous one. It's one of the never-ending cycles in life."

User avatar
bmcke
Wakka
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:47 pm

Re: Human Bio

Post by bmcke » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:12 pm

Alright. I'd take a quick explanation why anatomy's a bad idea, if someone wants to give that. Otherwise we can wrap things up here.
Brendan McKendy
University of Ottawa 2011
Ontario QBA 2019

User avatar
Rococo A Go Go
Auron
Posts: 2246
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Louisville, KY

Re: Human Bio

Post by Rococo A Go Go » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:18 pm

This is probably a product of my general scientific ignorance, but can anyone explain why anatomy questions mostly left out of quizbowl? I'm not saying I'd like to see more of them (wouldn't help me any if I did) but it's something that I've been mildly curious about for the last couple years.

EDIT: I've been mildly curious about the lack of anatomy, not the subject itself.
Nick Conder
Louisville, KY

"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."--Eugene V. Debs

User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Re: Human Bio

Post by cvdwightw » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:29 pm

bmcke wrote:Alright. I'd take a quick explanation why anatomy's a bad idea, if someone wants to give that. Otherwise we can wrap things up here.
Anatomy questions by themselves aren't bad per se, but generally the types of anatomy questions that show up are lazily written lists of other body structures that are in some way attached to or "associated with" the answer. You might think of the average anatomy question as the science equivalent of a garden-variety-bad geography question.

Now, if you're talking about physiology questions (the close and far-more-relevant cousin of anatomy), then that's a different story. These questions show up all the time at lower levels and, I guess, are not as noticeable at the higher levels because all the cool lead-in clues and a good number of the "interesting, accessible" middle clues deal with the molecular biology behind the function of a given structure, so it reads like a molecular biology question.
Dwight Wynne
socalquizbowl.org
UC Irvine 2008-2013; UCLA 2004-2007; Capistrano Valley High School 2000-2003

"It's a competition, but it's not a sport. On a scale, if football is a 10, then rowing would be a two. One would be Quiz Bowl." --Matt Birk on rowing, SI On Campus, 10/21/03

"If you were my teammate, I would have tossed your ass out the door so fast you'd be emitting Cerenkov radiation, but I'm not classy like Dwight." --Jerry

User avatar
Not That Kind of Christian!!
Yuna
Posts: 847
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Manhattan

Re: Human Bio

Post by Not That Kind of Christian!! » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:41 pm

cvdwightw wrote:
bmcke wrote:Now, if you're talking about physiology questions (the close and far-more-relevant cousin of anatomy), then that's a different story. These questions show up all the time at lower levels and, I guess, are not as noticeable at the higher levels because all the cool lead-in clues and a good number of the "interesting, accessible" middle clues deal with the molecular biology behind the function of a given structure, so it reads like a molecular biology question.
Yeah, tossups on "aorta" or "spleen" or what have you pop up at the novice level with structural clues, but beyond that, more depth is required.
bmcke wrote:I've also heard the theory that health subjects might get marginalized because more men than women are involved in quizbowl.
[/quote]

Huh?
Hannah Kirsch
Brandeis University 2010
NYU School of Medicine 2014

"Wow, those Scandinavians completely thorbjorned my hard-earned political capital."

User avatar
bsmith
Tidus
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:33 am
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Human Bio

Post by bsmith » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:12 pm

Ottawa's health sciences faculty is catered toward the student athletes and material that would be relevant to their athletic development, along with non-athlete students entering fitness or therapy related careers. One program is a track that leads to medicine. Examples of subjects would be nutrition, anatomy & physiology (mentioned earlier), sports kinetics, nursing and therapy. Some of these come up in quizbowl through their relation to bio; some don't, largely because it's hard to have an accessible tossup on exercise regimens or fluid intake.

Note: in no way do I mean to slight the studies in that faculty. Other disciplines are difficult to make accessible as well, like engineering and journalism.
Ben Smith
Ottawa '08 & '10

bag-of-worms
Lulu
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:42 pm

Re: Human Bio

Post by bag-of-worms » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:44 pm

Questions on organs and structures tend to become stock clue and association bowl, but there are some really fantastic questions on metabolic processes out there that use physiology clues, but I'm sure there are great physics questions that use minor area knowledge, and so forth.

Those who argue that physiology has no place in quizbowl should also argue that computer science, zoology, earth science, astronomy, math and other science areas that aren't centrally important to biology/chemistry/physics have no place, either. I don't mind the minor areas, but there are those purists who don't like questions on minor subjects.
I'm not saying either is right or wrong. I'm pointing out that liking computer science and disliking physiology or something to that effect is imposing your personal biases on to quizbowl, and that is bad. You have all of the minor categories or you don't, or else the concept of a static distribution is nullified. One conceivably could write all of his or her chemistry questions on organic chemistry, or write his or her physics questions on astronomy, for instance.

Go ahead and write a question on momentum using astronomy clues, or go ahead and write a question on glycolysis using a physiology clue, or go ahead and do the reverse, but saying that any non core biology/physics/chemistry discipline is more important than another is just cherry picking to satisfy one's personal biases.
This, of course, assumes we all agree to the arbitrary belief that the big three are equal.

Essentially, there can be all or none, or the zoo guy will want to nix comp sci and the astro guy will complain about the strange bird question.
Austin
Illinois

Tower Monarch
Rikku
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Human Bio

Post by Tower Monarch » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:19 pm

Uncanny wrote:Those who argue that physiology has no place in quizbowl should also argue that computer science, zoology, earth science, astronomy, math and other science areas that aren't centrally important to biology/chemistry/physics have no place, either. I don't mind the minor areas, but there are those purists who don't like questions on minor subjects.
I'm not saying either is right or wrong.
As seen in this thread, there really aren't people saying "physiology has no place in quizbowl" and I cannot imagine who these "purists" are that have it out for Math and Computer Science (notably represented in ACF distributions and many other tournaments). Zoology really can't be placed in the same phrase as CS, Earth Sci, Astro and Math, and if you don't think Math/CS are "centrally important" to all the other science disciplines, that's a problem.
Cameron Orth - Freelance Writer/Moderator, PACE member
College: JTCC 2011, Dartmouth College '09-'10, '11-'14
Mathematics, Computer Science and Film/Media Studies
High School: Home Schooled/Cosby High '08-'09, MLWGSGIS A-E '06-'08

User avatar
The Ununtiable Twine
Auron
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:09 pm
Location: Lafayette, LA

Re: Human Bio

Post by The Ununtiable Twine » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:29 pm

Uncanny wrote:Those who argue that physiology has no place in quizbowl should also argue that computer science, zoology, earth science, astronomy, math and other science areas that aren't centrally important to biology/chemistry/physics have no place, either. I don't mind the minor areas, but there are those purists who don't like questions on minor subjects.
Math, computer science, and astronomy are not centrally important to physics? Really? Also, those things that you listed are not minor science areas, just represented a little less in the canon. Any scientist that agrees with this should be warned that they will no longer be allowed to use equations if they agree with the poster. :twisted: Then we'll see how exactly how "minor" math is.

Cameron, you beat me to it. :party:

Also, who are these purists?
Jake Sundberg
Louisiana '04-'10, '14-'16, '18-'xx
Alabama '10-14
President, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Club for Academic Competition

User avatar
DumbJaques
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 3080
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Human Bio

Post by DumbJaques » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:54 am

For the record I think people only get vexed by anatomy questions because people write them in really aggravating ways (eg "this bone articulates to the fucksus muscle, along with like 20 other bones that could also be the answer"). It's not incredibly hard not to do that, but you have to know what you're doing to a degree.

Honestly I can't see a reason we can't have tossups on things like "ACL," "rotator cuff," or even a question on something like "foot" that were academic and playable. If I was writing such a tossup, I'd draw clues drawn from anatomy, physiology, kinesiology, maybe surgical stuff/injuries and treatments, etc. I mean obviously you can't do this in significant quantity, but it certainly can be done.

Of course, it's not hard to figure out why we get these kinds of questions; people who study this stuff are sparsely (if at all) represented in quizbowl. Some dude in this thread said he wasn't "impugning" these majors or something, but I'm going to go ahead and impugn the shit out of them, because a good deal of kinesiology/sports medicine/athletic studies UG majors are utter nonsense and will teach you very little in the way of academic information that could be reproduced in the tossup. This is obviously different when people are at the graduate level, different from school to school, and I'm sure different for a subset of people even at places where the departments are kind of jokes. But by and large a lot of the people doing that stuff are not going to be writing questions for next year's Chicago Open.

And that's a shame in some ways, because as I said I do think there's academic mileage to be had there - a friend of mine did a few years as an assistant in the training program for the Maryland athletic department (during a period when that was considered one of the best in the country) and learned a great deal of stuff that could probably translate to a playable question. It'd take some work though and, of course, you'd have to have access to said info, which isn't something a lot of qbers come across. Maybe Eric can venture out of the comfort zone and try to write some sports medicine? Or maybe more science players could tear up their ligaments playing pickup, but that seems kind of a roundabout way of doing it.
Chris Ray
OSU
University of Chicago, 2016
University of Maryland, 2014
ACF, PACE

Windows ME
Wakka
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:06 am

Re: Human Bio

Post by Windows ME » Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:22 am

FWIW, I notice a shocking amount of "human bio" (ie. health-related stuff) whenever I read a pack written or edited by anyone in med school.

Not that I'm complaining.
Sinan U.
U of Toronto 2010
U of Alberta 2015

User avatar
Auroni
Auron
Posts: 3002
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Human Bio

Post by Auroni » Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:57 am

Chris is right. Most clues for even well known bones and muscles are just a mess of Latin words that are not even unique. (Kind of like geneology clues for Greek myth tossups, but that's another story).. Of course this doesn't mean that enterprising writers shouldn't try to use better clues for them, since it is unquestionably an academic topic of importance.
Auroni Gupta
UIUC
ACF

bag-of-worms
Lulu
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:42 pm

Re: Human Bio

Post by bag-of-worms » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:45 pm

Serious Games Showcase and Challenge wrote: Math, computer science, and astronomy are not centrally important to physics? Really? Also, those things that you listed are not minor science areas, just represented a little less in the canon. Any scientist that agrees with this should be warned that they will no longer be allowed to use equations if they agree with the poster. :twisted: Then we'll see how exactly how "minor" math is.
Also, who are these purists?
I'm using "central" in the hardest sense. Topics involving mass, momentum, friction density, energy, inertia, etc. or equilibrium, kinetics, aromatics, reactions etc. or metabolism, organelle function, genetics and other things are, in a quizbowl sense, more important. Toss up the other areas, use clues from them, and that's all great and fine. Math is important, but you can't justify substituting all of your physics 1/1 with math because it is important. There are other important things, too. One can't create a sub-distribution hierarchy saying that Math>CS>Astronomy>physical chem or such, as no one will ever agree with him or her that one subset is greater than another.
Serious Games Showcase and Challenge wrote:Any scientist that agrees with this should be warned that they will no longer be allowed to use equations if they agree with the poster. :twisted: Then we'll see how exactly how "minor" math is.
Sure. Scientists can't use equations. We'll go with that. They can't do lab experiments or computations either, but oh wait, we don't do that in quizbowl? I think the quizbowl gods forgot to put in 1/1 comp math and 1/1 mice experimentation as well. Such an unacceptable oversight!

Quizbowl is not meant to mimic real life. I'll go out on a limb, anyway, and say that you need the mass and the acceleration before you can do the math with it.
Serious Games Showcase and Challenge wrote:Also, who are these purists?
Those who want to see more tossups on easy answer lines with harder clues. There may or may not be a huge group of them, but it truly is irrelevant. I was simply presenting various theoretical stances, and saying that none are necessarily wrong as long as the given person doesn't impose subjective biases into the mix. For example, saying Zoology can't be in the same phrase as CS or Earth Science. I agree, tossing up zebra or the Indri lemur is bad quizbowl, but so is tossing up random rock #3. I personally don't mind CS, and I enjoy earth science, but I have no right to say one is more important than the other, and should be tossed up more often.
Austin
Illinois

User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Re: Human Bio

Post by cvdwightw » Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:23 pm

I don't even know how to respond to your posts because they combine the bizarro premises that "people in this thread are arguing for the elimination of anatomy/physiology questions" and "people are doing whatever the hell they want in the science subdistribution because of their subjective biases." And then you come up with the ludicrous argument that "people who want more science questions on topics that a person will have learned about in a basic survey course are also in favor of eliminating wide swathes of the subdistribution."

I seriously urge you to reconsider your ideas about how quizbowl works before someone like Jerry comes along and rips you a new one.
Dwight Wynne
socalquizbowl.org
UC Irvine 2008-2013; UCLA 2004-2007; Capistrano Valley High School 2000-2003

"It's a competition, but it's not a sport. On a scale, if football is a 10, then rowing would be a two. One would be Quiz Bowl." --Matt Birk on rowing, SI On Campus, 10/21/03

"If you were my teammate, I would have tossed your ass out the door so fast you'd be emitting Cerenkov radiation, but I'm not classy like Dwight." --Jerry

Tower Monarch
Rikku
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Human Bio

Post by Tower Monarch » Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:37 pm

I'll second what Dwight just said and add this: please read a few science textbooks so that you can understand how the subjects really work before you start telling actual scientists what's important. You have made it abundantly clear to me that you really don't understand CS or Math just from the above posts.
Cameron Orth - Freelance Writer/Moderator, PACE member
College: JTCC 2011, Dartmouth College '09-'10, '11-'14
Mathematics, Computer Science and Film/Media Studies
High School: Home Schooled/Cosby High '08-'09, MLWGSGIS A-E '06-'08

User avatar
The Ununtiable Twine
Auron
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:09 pm
Location: Lafayette, LA

Re: Human Bio

Post by The Ununtiable Twine » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:16 pm

Uncanny wrote:
I'm using "central" in the hardest sense. Topics involving mass, momentum, friction density, energy, inertia, etc. or equilibrium, kinetics, aromatics, reactions etc. or metabolism, organelle function, genetics and other things are, in a quizbowl sense, more important.
You made this up. They may be more important in high school quizbowl because mechanics is the first physics course you take. It doesn't mean that it's the only important area in physics. I'm thinking you're biased because you don't know much about the subject and your bias is causing you to have strange ideas about how to make this portion of the canon easier to manage for yourself. Your way of thinking will lead to more people just being able to buzz in on keywords and does not reward knowledge in the same way a broader canon does. Welcome to college, we know more stuff and we choose to incorporate it into the canon.
Uncanny wrote:Toss up the other areas, use clues from them, and that's all great and fine. Math is important, but you can't justify substituting all of your physics 1/1 with math because it is important.
No one suggested such. It deserves its place in the canon. If you don't know why, then feel free to browse the history of beautiful ideas. It's a subject rich in both beauty and usefulness.
Uncanny wrote:There are other important things, too. One can't create a sub-distribution hierarchy saying that Math>CS>Astronomy>physical chem or such, as no one will ever agree with him or her that one subset is greater than another.
Yes, but again you're missing the point. The reason questions from these areas are often asked is because they are major areas. That the ACF distribution chooses to make math .5/.5 or so instead of closer to 1/1 was, at a time, disheartening to me, however I've grown to accept it.
Uncanny wrote:Sure. Scientists can't use equations. We'll go with that. They can't do lab experiments or computations either, but oh wait, we don't do that in quizbowl? I think the quizbowl gods forgot to put in 1/1 comp math and 1/1 mice experimentation as well. Such an unacceptable oversight!
You fail to see the point. If there are no mathematical relationships, then so many things can't happen. You can't exist as you are, for instance, because there is now no mathematical relationship between force and acceleration. F = dp/dt is a mathematical relation. It involves the derivative, a concept crucial to the growth of civilization. Surely, in order for us to study gravity, gravity has to exist, but gravity can't exist as it does without the inverse-square law (at least on the macroscale). However the study of gravity did not advance to the point where it is now without an understanding of calculus, and there are more complicated problems in gravitation that involve the use of more advanced mathematical techniques. If those techniques did not exist, research would not be able to proceed as it does. I'm not being an arrogant piece of shit when I say "math is important" - I'm telling you that it is fundamental because equations govern just about everything. Just because there is .5/.5 in the distribution allotted to a subject doesn't mean it's minor.

With regards to computational math not being in the collegiate canon, there's no reason for it to be. Quizbowl is a game of recognizing concepts, not solving equations.
Uncanny wrote:Quizbowl is not meant to mimic real life. I'll go out on a limb, anyway, and say that you need the mass and the acceleration before you can do the math with it.
I've made it quite clear that I know more about this topic than you do. If you have any questions, ask Mr. Sorice.
Uncanny wrote: Those who want to see more tossups on easy answer lines with harder clues.
...are purists? In what sense? The sense that they don't want to broaden their horizons and learn about other things that are beautiful and perhaps equally important? There are a lot of important things and we ask about them all the time. Just because the answer line is easy doesn't mean the topic is unimportant. It means you have to study more topics to be effective, that's all.

Edit: oops, edit equation. It would help to have the right equation from time to time.
Last edited by The Ununtiable Twine on Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Jake Sundberg
Louisiana '04-'10, '14-'16, '18-'xx
Alabama '10-14
President, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Club for Academic Competition

User avatar
Gautam
Auron
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: Zone of Avoidance
Contact:

Re: Human Bio

Post by Gautam » Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:57 pm

I'm not sure where this thread is headed, but to bring the topic back to human bio:

Writers and editors often tailor questions with the intended field in mind. There are maybe 5 people currently in quizbowl who have any kind of exposure to "nutrition" or "nursing" classes, compared to the much larger set of people with a decent exposure to "biology."

That said, people write "physiology" questions (even ones which aren't quasi-biochem questions) all the time... I mean, you can open up MUT 2011 and MO 2010 and I know for a fact that I'd written some physiology/anatomy themed questions for those tournaments. eg. MUT (I think) had a kinesiology-ish bonus on pronation, ankle joint, plantar fasciitis; MO had an shark physiology bonus, which went sharks, countercurrent heat-exchange, electricity. ICT recently had a tossup on "respiration" which seemed to be written from a purely physiological perspective. I know my tournaments tend to have higher numbers of plant physiology-type questions too, to satisfy the 5 people who may be interested in plants...I can only think of Ryan Westbrook and Michael van de Weghe from Minnesota but there have to be more.

Basically this is a non-issue, from my perspective. I guess I'd welcome specific examples of what your teammate would like to see come up. Also, I'll suggest she take the usual route of "write a reasonable question on the topic you'd like to see come up; if it plays well and sees decent conversion across the board, maybe other writers will consider asking about the topic in the future."
Gautam - ACF
Currently tending to the 'quizbowl hobo' persuasion.

bag-of-worms
Lulu
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:42 pm

Re: Human Bio

Post by bag-of-worms » Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:01 am

You are missing the point entirely. Even if I completely agree to what you are saying, and completely recant the parts of the statements you are attacking, and admit I was wrong to say certain things and that I am a complete jackass know-nothing, I truly would not be pulling back much except the ways I have articulated my point.

I'll say it it plainly: you can't say one minor area is more important than other with certainty without imposing personal biases.
If you think 2 out of the 6 areas I claimed were minor are, in fact, not minor, I'm sorry. Don't get all flustered. That doesn't mean you have to dance around what I'm actually trying to say. I could be dead wrong, or you could be biased; either situations are very possible; I cannot be 100% objective all the time.
Serious Games Showcase and Challenge wrote:No one suggested such. It deserves its place in the canon. If you don't know why, then feel free to browse the history of beautiful ideas. It's a subject rich in both beauty and usefulness
I never said it doesn't belong. I used it as an example to obviate the idea that one can't budge a subject out for another. It has its place, but so do many other topics, and you solidify it as more important as another topic. I never said you specifically said this, I never said anyone did. I'm saying that this is an argument for NOT simply recommoving science sub-topics like physiology, that it has its place and saying otherwise is probably personal, subjective, complaining.
Serious Games Showcase and Challenge wrote:Just because there is .5/.5 in the distribution allotted to a subject doesn't mean it's minor.
From a quizbowl standpoint, it is minor in comparison to the 1/1 topics, for 1/1 is greater than .5/.5 . I'm not trying to sound like a dick and point out the obvious for effect, but I'm saying the .5/.5 topics can't be emphasized differently. If math is moved up to 1/1, so be it. But if we subscribe to the arbitrary distributions, we can't just cut out things like earth science or physiology or say that one trumps another, for it is doubtful there could be mass agreement on the matter.
Serious Games Showcase and Challenge wrote:...are purists? In what sense?
I'm not saying this philosophy is right or wrong, just that it could be a solution that one may advocate. That sounds useless to the discussion but I aim not to say "this is the solution and you had better all listen, damnit." This was my attempt to prevent people from saying "there is more than one way to approach the distribution."

I don't mind being a jackass know-nothing, but to some extent I feel like the bulk of what I was trying to say was being missed.
Austin
Illinois

User avatar
sds
Wakka
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:46 am

Re: Human Bio

Post by sds » Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:07 pm

Piggybacking on this topic, I'd like to find out what subdistribution (if any) people use for biology when writing or editing a tournament.

When writing IO, I started with the following rough distribution (16/16 altogether):

1/2 plant + fungi
1/0 ecology
1/1 microbio
1/1 non-human animal
1/1 neuro + hormones
2/2 biochem
2/2 cell bio
2/1 genetics
2/2 physiology
1/1 histo + anatomy
1/1 diseases/immuno
0/1 lab techniques
1/1 other? - behavioral bio, evol. bio?

(This got cut down to 15/15, so I axed the last category.)


The final result was pretty close to the original:

2/2 plants + fungi: meristem; rubisco; pollen/stigma/endosperm; N. crassa /ascomycota/penicillin
1/0 ecology: ecological succession
1/1 microbio: peptidoglycan; F-factor/sex pilus/merozygote
0/1 non-human animal: countercurrent exchange/gills/lamellae
1/1 neuro + hormones: dopamine; hypothalamus/leptin/hypocretin(orexin)
2/2 biochem: folate; fatty acid oxidation; glycolysis/TPP/pantothenic acid; peptide bond/proline/beta turn
2/2 cell bio: keratin; GFP; endoplasmic reticulum/PDI/ubiquitin; cilia/axoneme/basalbody
2/1 genetics: tRNA; nonsense mediated decay; retrotransposon/reverse transcriptase/Alu
2/2 physiology: red blood cells; iron; gastric ulcers/h. pylori/parietal cells; surfactant/alveoli/laplace's law
1/1 histo + anatomy: humerus; gram stain/silver/hematoxylin & eosin
1/1 diseases/immuno: cystic fibrosis; inflammation/neutrophils/alpha-1-antitrypsin
0/1 lab techniques: ELISA/horseradish peroxidase/Western blot

I also consciously tried to include at least a few pathways and processes, in addition to "things" (i.e. structures, proteins, species).

I found this really helpful for keeping things organized from the start of writing. It was also helpful for coming up with the last few answer lines, since it narrowed down the options a bit.

Does anyone else create subdistributions in advance for science? Or other areas?
Obviously it'd be difficult with packet submission tournaments, but I think it'd be helpful for house written tournaments. It'd give less experienced writers a bit of guidance for selecting answers within a certain category, and avoids the issue of discovering at the end that you've got too many questions on social psychology and not enough econ.
Surya
Michigan '10 & '14

Susan
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 1817
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:43 am

Re: Human Bio

Post by Susan » Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:33 pm

I always create subdistributions; mine for bio looks quite different from yours (way less med school-looking stuff, more organismal, evolutionary, and developmental). When I'm not posting from my phone I'll try to dig mine up.
Susan
UChicago alum (AB 2003, PhD 2009)
Member emerita, ACF

User avatar
fluffy4102
Wakka
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:59 am
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Human Bio

Post by fluffy4102 » Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:56 pm

gkandlikar wrote:Writers and editors often tailor questions with the intended field in mind. There are maybe 5 people currently in quizbowl who have any kind of exposure to "nutrition" or "nursing" classes, compared to the much larger set of people with a decent exposure to "biology."
Besides the exposure issue, I would argue that nutrition and nursing are very different from biology in that they are applications of basic biological research. We don't write mechanical or electrical engineering questions. Likewise, we don't see many questions on cancer or other translational fields that are often incorporated into the curriculum at major research institutions. Quiz bowl is not about solving problems or finding applications. With that in mind, I would argue any nutrition beyond what is founded in molecular biology isn't relevant to biology as a distribution, and that nursing is heavily founded in techniques, not just book knowledge. For most experienced science players, it should be obvious that techniques make up a very small part of the distribution and that increasing the number of questions on techniques is imprudent, especially if it means edging out more salient topics in basic science. Regardless of how many ELISA or PCR tossups have been written in the past 4 years, I don't want to see a bonus on CPR, rinsing a line, and dosages.
gkandlikar wrote: That said, people write "physiology" questions (even ones which aren't quasi-biochem questions) all the time... I mean, you can open up MUT 2011 and MO 2010 and I know for a fact that I'd written some physiology/anatomy themed questions for those tournaments. eg. MUT (I think) had a kinesiology-ish bonus on pronation, ankle joint, plantar fasciitis; MO had an shark physiology bonus, which went sharks, countercurrent heat-exchange, electricity. ICT recently had a tossup on "respiration" which seemed to be written from a purely physiological perspective.
I definitely agree with the quasi-biochem designation. There exists a significant difference between a physiology class offered by a kinesiology department and one offered by a biology department. The kinesiology one will be less detailed, largely bereft of molecular mechanisms, and definitely less quantitative. One might be able to argue that more generalized gross physiology is ignored in quiz bowl, but the molecular physiology centered on the cellular level is routinely observed in the canon.

On another note, I would like to point out what biology looked like before 2006. Looking back at early ACF tournaments, I see a lot of anatomy.
Zach Yeung
St. John's '08
Rice University '12
Biochemistry and Cell Biology and Political Science

User avatar
Cody
2008-09 Male Athlete of the Year
Posts: 2312
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:57 am
Location: Richmond

Re: Human Bio

Post by Cody » Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:49 pm

fluffy4102 wrote:Besides the exposure issue, I would argue that nutrition and nursing are very different from biology in that they are applications of basic biological research. We don't write mechanical or electrical engineering questions.
We do, in fact, write questions on at least electrical engineering topics and probably on mechanical engineering topics as well (for example, MEs take engineering classes on Fluid Mechanics, Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer). In any case, there are certainly biology questions that do come up that I would expect someone who has taken a nutrition class to know (metabolic diseases, some of the vitamins that get asked about). I'm not really sure about nursing, but I'm sure there are viable things to ask about there, some of which are probably already asked about.
sds wrote:Does anyone else create subdistributions in advance for science?
While I did not create an explicit subdistribution for any of the science categories for VCU Open, I made an attempt to make sure I wasn't over-emphasizing any subdistribution and was including as many areas as possible. I think this worked out acceptably, but would have probably worked better with an explicit subdistribution (i.e. I don't think there is any severe over-representation of any categories, but tossup/bonus representation is kind of wonky). What I think is how it split down for Bio is below (but may well be off--I'm not really sure of what goes in some of these subdistributions!):

1/0 Microbio - poxviruses
4/1 Biochem - tyrosine, alcohol, adenosine, cortisol; pancreas/beta cells/CCK-PZ
1/0 Cell Bio - eggs
1/0 Fungi - mycorrizhae
2/2 Organismal Bio - Cephalopoda, krill; cicada/13 year cycle/tymbals, giant tubeworms/sulfur/coelom
2/2 Genetics - centromeres, DNA sequencing; epigenetics/DNA methylation/CpG site, telomere/TTAGGG/Cri-du-Chat syndrome
1/0 Plant Bio - ethylene
1/0 Science History - Cuvier
2/4 Misc (i.e. cross-category, unsure) - chickens, mucus; molecular clock hypothesis/alpha helix/Linus Pauling, poison ivy/urushiol/haptene, phosphorus/Redfield-Richards ratio/silicon, peptidoglycan/beta-lactam antibiotics/methicillin
0/1 Ecology - K-selection/biodiversity/disturbances
0/4 Diseases/Syndromes/etc - obstructive sleep apnea syndrome/Continuous Positive Airway Pressure machine/maxilla; stroke/atherosclerosis/Framingham Heart Study; meningitis/endotoxins/Limulus; acne/dihydrotestosterone/Roaccutane
0/1 Bioinformatics - nucleic acid/BLAST/Smith-Waterman algorithm
Susan wrote:I always create subdistributions; mine for bio looks quite different from yours (way less med school-looking stuff, more organismal, evolutionary, and developmental). When I'm not posting from my phone I'll try to dig mine up.
I'd be interested in seeing this.
Cody Voight, VCU ‘14. I wrote lots of science and am an electrical engineer.
VCU Tournament Director ‘13-‘17. HSAPQ President ‘15-16.
Hero of Socialist Quizbowl Labor (NSC ‘14). “esteemed colleague” of Snap Wexley, ca. 2016. Stats Hero (Nats ‘16).
Quizbowl at VCU

User avatar
Sima Guang Hater
Auron
Posts: 1853
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Human Bio

Post by Sima Guang Hater » Fri Aug 26, 2011 10:35 pm

I don't really create explicit subdistributions, I just kind of wing it and try to distribute between biochem, genetics, cell bio, immuno, dev bio, ecology, and evolutionary bio.
Eric Mukherjee, MD PhD
Washburn Rural High School, 2005
Brown University, 2009
Medical Scientist Training Program, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 2018
Intern in Internal Medicine, Yale-Waterbury, 2018-9
Dermatology Resident, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2019-

Member Emeritus, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer, NAQT, NHBB, IQBT

"The next generation will always surpass the previous one. It's one of the never-ending cycles in life."

Locked