--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, jp_lien <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: [snip] > include some phrase of warning. I won't, however, accept the presence > of the computation bonuses so easily. I understand (without > approving) that NAQT's apparent merger of the high school and college > invitational sets has produced collegiate sets with both computation > toss-ups and bonuses, but this set was (presumably) written > exclusively for college play. Do the authors and editors really > believe that such questions are appropriate for college-level qb? J.p. -- NAQT believes that an ability to make use of relatively simple, well- known, and important mathematical and physical equations is no less important than other knowledge that is considered part of higher education. NAQT also believes that many such questions fit into the tossup/bonus paradigm of quiz bowl and can be written so that they are no more difficult than many other questions. Certainly one would not want questions with computational elements to form the bulk of the science or math distribution--much less a majority of quiz bowl--but NAQT sees no reason to competely avoid this area of knowledge, particularly since it is deemed (by us) to be an effective way of assessing "real," rather than "superficial" knowledge. > While they do reward knowledge of particular formulae, they are also > predicated on one's ability to quickly crunch numbers (or memorize > tricks and short-cuts for doing so). I'm a staunch advocate of The numbers for computation parts are generally chosen to minimize the actual computation required. NAQT believes that tricks and techniques for rapid, accurate computation are valuable forms of knowledge and has no qualms about awarding points to teams that are familiar with them. > numeracy, and I often wish other people could figure out 20% of their > own restaurant tabs, but I don't see how the inability to calculate a > Lorentz transform in one's head should be punished in qb. It's The implication here is that the computation of the Lorentz factor is extremely difficult compared to the other questions in the set. That may be; it was answered correctly in the room I moderated at the SCT, but may well have been among the more difficult questions. I look forward to the day that NAQT will be able to gather exact data on the rate at which each individual question was answered. That said, a person knowledgeable about relativistic physics but without the ability to calculate beyond integer division would still have been able to answer the second part of that particular bonus once the answer to the first part was revealed. > possible that I've surrounded myself with yes-people, but until > Saturday, I hadn't ever heard anyone even attempt to defend that > position (although I suppose it's been hashed out on the list, and > this board, in the past). I don't recall seeing a lengthy discussion of this in the past; perhaps it would make for an entertaining one. Why do you feel that the application of important physical or mathematical formula and the use of calculating techniques is inappropriate in the context of quiz bowl questions? -- R. Robert Hentzel President and Chief Technical Officer, National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST