Illinois 06-07

[IcyBallerina]

I've been lurking for a while and decided that it was time to introduce myself. Without further ado:

Hi! I'm Hannah- the "girl from Boylan" that made all-tournament at Sterling.

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

Only if the players do no work outside of actual school to prepare for Scholastic Bowl. Here are the works that have been in my high school curriculum (* denotes a book that I selected from a group of possible books to read):

Hobbit, Odyssey, Siddhartha, Romeo and Juliet, Grendel, A Tale of Two Cities, Catcher in the Rye, Pride and Prejudice, A Doll's House*, Our Town*, The Great Gatsby*, Winesburg Ohio*, Mississippi, Oracle Night*, The Awakening, A Confederacy of Dunces*, To the Lighthouse*, Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness, Richard III, Dante's Inferno, Power and the Glory, Jekyll and Hyde, Picture of Dorian Gray, Light in August, and various poets (specifically Frost, Dickinson, and the more well known Romantic and Victorian poets).

I'm sure I missed a few, but that is most of them. Now, while almost of all those works will come up in schobowl fairly frequently, that list alone is not nearly sufficient enough to be a good lit player. Some authors, such as Milton, simply aren't common in high schools. And that's what typically separates good teams and bad teams -- a desire to learn information not presented in the standard school curriculum.

Trev has a very good point here. Being a good lit player is one part preparation in school (via assigned works and the like) and one part preparation outside of school (via independent quizbowl study and the like). He has a very good point that the latter is much, much more important for any self-respecting lit player.

But what happens if you don't get anything in school? Trev's lit experience, in 3.5 years, far outstrips what I had in 4 years. Here's my list of works assigned in school (no asterisks, because none of my English classes ever had an assignment where you choose a work to read independently - when my first college lit class assigned something like that, I remarked to the professor that I liked the idea of it, and he was honestly floored that my high school curriculum never did it.)

Freshman year: Huck Finn, Romeo and Juliet, a collection of 5 short stories, and a good deal of Greco-Roman mythology. Most of the year was taken up by grammar, a research paper, and the mythology unit. We spent a month, maybe up to a month and a half on each of the two works.
Sophomore year: To Kill a Mockingbird and Julius Caesar. Random poetry, but mostly spent on poetry "theory," not poets or poems.
Junior year: The Great Gatsby, The Crucible, The Old Man and the Sea, A Raisin in the Sun, another collection of roughly half a dozen short stories.
Senior year: Fully read: Hamlet, Brave New World, The Grapes of Wrath, Animal Farm, Cry, the Beloved Country, Oedipus Rex and Antigone. Covered: Canterbury Tales, Beowulf, Gilgamesh.

The only reason my senior year passes the "three work" threshold is the fact that it was an "advanced" class, so we got rid of the semi-illiterate fools holding my first three years of English back. (That, and Ms. Niemeier's just as demanding in the classroom as she is in quizbowl :)) The normal senior English class read one novel and no plays. We never read any Hawthorne, Faulkner, Cooper, or Sinclair Lewis. If you asked anyone in my graduating class to name playwrights, they'd get Shakespeare, maybe Miller if they had a good memory for the Crucible, and if you nudged them really hard, they might remember that they read A Raisin in the Sun. We had no O'Neill, no Shaw, no Williams. The countries of Russia, France, Italy, Germany, continents of Africa and South America, and civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome had no literature whatsoever in my school (except for the Oedipus trilogy, but that's only in the advanced senior class).

And families are flocking to Winnebago right now for the excellent schools. What the heck is going on elsewhere???

I think the gist of my argument is that for any school below the higher echelons, there is little rational argument to be made for school curricula as quizbowl study aid. It's impossible to get the lowest common denominator to learn at the pace that quizbowlers can learn, so most of quizbowl is learned outside of school.

[mlaird]

I'm convinced that Maine South Fr-Soph could have beaten Loyola if Coach Biondo had offered to shave his head ..... but then again Coach Biondo is a sane, rational man. You offer to shave your head for winning Nationals or maybe state .... not some podunk 10 team tournament.

That's right, you heard it here folks: Park Ridge= Podunk.

And honestly, I'm just using this as an excuse to finally get around to actually doing something I've been meaning to have done for almost a year. Maybe Coach Riley will shave his moustache???

[David Riley]

Harrumph--Mr. Riley has had his moustache for going on 35 years and refuses to shave it. As for my body organs, nature is already taking care of that faster than I can!

Hmmmmm...maybe I'll freely admit my Irish heritage and stop being a Hungarian wannabe.

[friarup]

And that's what typically separates good teams and bad teams -- a desire to learn information not presented in the standard school curriculum.

Just a little add on here--besides reading the actual novels and plays, it is helpful to review some lists of famous works and their authors. Lots of PLEASE MAKE FUN OF ME BECAUSE I SPEAK NEITHER LATIN NOR ENGLISH are simply, "name the author of the following books." These lists help a lot in those areas. I know the NAQT website has a few good lists like that in the "You Gotta Know" section. I've been looking places for similar lists, but I think NAQT has the best selection.

I've found myself Wikipedia-ing lots of famous works because many of the works of literature are long and hard to get through. Most questions require a basic understanding on the work in question. Although reading the work itself is the best way to become familiar with the material in it, using Wikipedia-like sites helps to get out the basic plot and characters and such...sparknotes works, too...

[Trevkeeper]

And that's what typically separates good teams and bad teams -- a desire to learn information not presented in the standard school curriculum.

Just a little add on here--besides reading the actual novels and plays, it is helpful to review some lists of famous works and their authors. Lots of PLEASE MAKE FUN OF ME BECAUSE I SPEAK NEITHER LATIN NOR ENGLISH are simply, "name the author of the following books." These lists help a lot in those areas. I know the NAQT website has a few good lists like that in the "You Gotta Know" section. I've been looking places for similar lists, but I think NAQT has the best selection.

I agree. Here's how I learned lit:

Sophomore year: memorize NAQT You Gotta Know lists
Summer after Soph year: Attend ACE and take Lit II
Junior year: review more in depth lists, pick up more information
Summer after Junior year: Attend ACE and take Lit II again (it alternates between World and American lit, so it was different material)

That's what I did, and it worked for me. I literally knew no lit sophomore year, and I'm at least a competent lit guy now. Not saying it will work for everyone, I just think that learning general thinks like author/work is a good way to progress into more in-depth stuff.

Oh, and another thing: it's very important to know characters. At least half of the teams you'll face will know author/work, but far fewer will know characters (unless it's someone like Raskolnikov).

[Tegan]

I've been lurking for a while and decided that it was time to introduce myself. Without further ado:

Hi! I'm Hannah- the "girl from Boylan" that made all-tournament at Sterling.

Since no one else will ... greetings and welcome! We've normally always made the trek to Boylan in the past, but couldn't squeeze it into the schedule this year ..... we hope to be able to return in the future.

[Bubiyuqn]

Not to, y'know, rehash old topics and be contrary, but I don't necessarily see a problem with the two math questions that were given as ridiculous:

e^.5 is easily approximated using the MacLaurin Series for e^x (try it, it's neat). Or was the complaint in the low number of sigfigs it had to be approximated to? However, calculating square roots of strange numbers (i.e. 29) is nearly impossible in 30 seconds, because it's more or less a guessing test. Does anyone know a better way to do this than Newton's method (way too much calculation for 30 seconds)? (to find a^.5 do iterations of x' = (x^2 + a)/(2x))

As far as binomial expansion goes, if you take a very mechanical process to it, it's not necessarily hard. Ideally, your math person would be answering the bonus, and if he had pascal's triangle, the powers of 5 up to 5 and the powers of 3 up to 5 written on his paper, and then some of the harder calculations written down, it's certainly viable to piece together the necessary bits as he reads. If either of the coefficients is more than about 5 though, things start getting iffy.

Feel free to disagree, but I don't think that the two mentioned were necessarily terrible.

-J Stoncius

[dtaylor4]

However, calculating square roots of strange numbers (i.e. 29) is nearly impossible in 30 seconds, because it's more or less a guessing test. Does anyone know a better way to do this than Newton's method (way too much calculation for 30 seconds)? (to find a^.5 do iterations of x' = (x^2 + a)/(2x))

I'm gonna use Justin's example of 29 here. From knowing some easy-to-learn math tricks, I can already get it down to the tenths (5.4). The "trick" is knowing how to square a 2-digit # with 5 as the tens digit (basically 50-59), in this case I'll use 54. Square the ones digit, in this case it'll be 16. Whatever that number is will be the last two digits of your answer. Now, take the ones digit, and add it to 25. That will be your first two digits.

To shorten: 4^2=16, 25+4=29, so your answer would be 2916.

For the problem in question, it's just a matter of doing it backwards and manipulating the decimal point, but it's basically the same general idea.

[leapfrog314]

Justin: There is a way of calculating square roots by hand, and it's only a little slower than long division if you're really familiar with it. I am not. Indeed, as you point out, sqrt(e) is a lot more reasonable than the Kaneland physics questions I experienced, where I had to approximate answers to projectile motion questions that used messy numbers, or figure out the total resistance of parallel resistors--to two significant figures. On several physics bonuses I did not even attempt to calculate the parts, because I am not going to bother approximating 15/359 or sqrt(45).

Also, there was a bonus at Kaneland in the semifinals asking to expand (x+y) raised to the powers of 3, 4, 5, and 6, a task which I, as well as a good number of other math players, would be able to complete entirely off the top of their heads. I think it's dumb to make people compute (3x+5y)^6 or something like that, which is the same problem, plus needless arithmetic (15^3? 5^6?) that proves no additional knowledge.

I guess the point is just that--I don't like needless arithmetic. I think that math questions should prove stronger knowledge in math, not ability to multiply numbers half a second faster than the other team.

I also think that we should have more non-computational math questions. Science questions are almost entirely theory instead of computation; why can't more of our math questions be theory? Any thoughts on this, guys?

[Bubiyuqn]

I totally agree that there should be more math history and theory. There's certainly no dearth of possible questions in the area, and I don't necessarily see why calculation should be the preferred style of math question. Computational math seems to veer away from the "knowledge" aspect of scholastic bowl, given that it is largely a test of mental speed. True, there is a certain amount of knowledge required to do calculations, but more often than not, everyone has said "knowledge" anyway, and it just comes down to speed. They have their place, I suppose, but math history and theory seem like they fit better in the general realm of quiz bowl.

-J Stoncius

[Tegan]

Also, there was a bonus at Kaneland in the semifinals asking to expand (x+y) raised to the powers of 3, 4, 5, and 6, a task which I, as well as a good number of other math players, would be able to complete entirely off the top of their heads. I think it's dumb to make people compute (3x+5y)^6 or something like that, which is the same problem, plus needless arithmetic (15^3? 5^6?) that proves no additional knowledge.

IMO, there are two "reasons" for questions like this:
1. Ignorance of the writer. You are correct that this is a one-skill question, and really is not worthy of being asked at this level, let alone a tournaments semifinal. I say this fully knowing I have made mistakes like that in the past.

2. If I knew that I was going to be facing a team that had a lot of good math people (or one or two in particular), I would write bonuses like this that were limiting in their ability to convert a bonus. Even with really good math people, there is a chacne they can't get all four parts, and limits their scoring ability. If they get this as a rebound, there is even the chance they won't get the one or two parts coming to them, not because htey don't know, but because almost no one can compute that fast (almost).

This is why I can see the argument against home teams playing in their own tournaments ...... but even then: if an arch-rival entered the tournament, you could always slant the questions against them. IT could be done rather subtlely too!

Math is also the easiest to do this with. Most other questions will always have a "giveaway" at the end, but math needn't do that. It becomes very easy to take math people out of a match, if you really want to.

[Stained Diviner]

When I saw somebody complain about (3x+5y)^5, at first I thought it was just whining, so I started working it out: 3^5, 5*81*5, 10*27*25, 10*9*125, 5*3*625, and 5^5. If you're good, it takes five seconds to figure out that those numbers are the ones you want to multiply, and you may already know 3^5 and 5^5. So, you have 25 seconds to make all the other computations above, assuming your teammates can work out the other bonus parts and that you can add in the variables on the fly. If you are correct on all of them, you earn five points. No partial credit.

I probably could do it in 60 seconds.

[Byko]

I totally agree that there should be more math history and theory. There's certainly no dearth of possible questions in the area, and I don't necessarily see why calculation should be the preferred style of math question.

As a writer, I've been working on a set for another state (not Illinois) where 22% of the questions are math and at least 1/2 of them are supposed to be non-computational. Add to this the fact that I'm writing 50 rounds for them and that there are 56 tossups in each round (including the extra tossups in each packet), and suddenly, coming up with 616 good, different answers each year for non-computational math becomes incredibly difficult. After a certain point, you're left either asking things that go somewhat beyond high school knowledge, or you're asking definitions of mathematical terms that are rarely used. Either way, it's not fun.

Non-computational math should have a place in the distribution, but it shouldn't be a big place. Likewise, computational math should also exist in the distribution, but having 22% of a tournament set be math is way too much, I think.

[Stained Diviner]

I find it challenging to write 20 noncomputational math questions each year that are relevant to the high school curriculum. It wasn't hard for the first year or two, but it gets difficult after you use up about forty or fifty good answers.

[First Chairman]

As a person who sometimes enjoys writing math comp questions (though I haven't recently), I will also chime in on this... you can't have 1 in 5 questions be math calculation without repeating a lot of general concepts. Unless we're talking about getting people who compete in Mathcounts, it is very difficult to write the type of math question that works for qb competitions... or at least so many.

Again, I personally oppose the use of calculation tossups because it's rather annoying to have a moderator read text over your head while doing math. Seriously, some kids may have the audio track of the State of the Union (not necessarily last night's) on an iPod while they're doing their geometry homework, but it's not under timed conditions. Plus, this isn't really "math."

You can switch around numbers as much as you want, but there are only so many ways to have the numbers work properly and have everything be done "in time."

As for non-computational, it's a little bit easier, but there is a point where one can only ask about so many eponymous concepts that high school kids should be familiar with (Fermat's last theorem, Pythagorean theorem, etc.).

That's why question-writing is so important for a player to improve when the most frequent answers is such a small set. It is a huge challenge for writers though to keep the concepts "fresh."

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

I'm not gonna lie, math theory is my favorite point of debate in quizbowl. Pyramidality doesn't count, because it isn't a debate when one answer is so obviously correct.

e^.5 is easily approximated using the MacLaurin Series for e^x (try it, it's neat). Or was the complaint in the low number of sigfigs it had to be approximated to? However, calculating square roots of strange numbers (i.e. 29) is nearly impossible in 30 seconds, because it's more or less a guessing test. Does anyone know a better way to do this than Newton's method (way too much calculation for 30 seconds)? (to find a^.5 do iterations of x' = (x^2 + a)/(2x))

As far as binomial expansion goes, if you take a very mechanical process to it, it's not necessarily hard. Ideally, your math person would be answering the bonus, and if he had pascal's triangle, the powers of 5 up to 5 and the powers of 3 up to 5 written on his paper, and then some of the harder calculations written down, it's certainly viable to piece together the necessary bits as he reads. If either of the coefficients is more than about 5 though, things start getting iffy.

When I saw the e^0.5 tossup in the moderator's meeting before the tourney, I protested it because I knew no one in the field would be able to get it (with one notable exception - Thomas Say from Sterling might have been able to do it, but I would say the odds are roughly 50-50) and that it was a generally low quality question in terms of the field . I doubt that a good majority of teams in this tournament would be able to tell me what e^1 is to two sigfigs!

I agree with Carlo on the nature of computational math in that it should test more than one skill, and that skill should not, at the varsity level, be multiplication. Computational math is, as many have said, different enough from quizbowl in that it's mental speed instead of knowledge speed. Non-computational math works to remedy this back to knowledge, and computational math should begin to as well. I also completely agree with Reinstein's analysis of the binomial theorem question, and feel that it speaks volumes about most of computational math. It is partly the question writer's fault, but it is also an integral part of computational math.

Personally, computational math is so different from the rest of quizbowl that it borders on trash, in my opinion. In a 30 question match, you've got 22 questions on Sci/SS/Lit/FA that are pyramidal and academic in nature, based on a wide, expanding canon, and primarily test what you have studied. You then have 6 math questions that are generally not pyramidal but are academic in nature, are based on a relatively smaller, non-expanding canon, and primarily test how quickly you can implement what you have studied. You then also have 2 trashy questions that are pyramidal but not academic in nature, based on a canon roughly between that of the larger categories and math, that primarily test what you have studied.

In my opinion, I see no difference between a match being decided by computational math and being decided by pop culture, because both subjects are vastly different from the majority of questions in the larger categories. In my opinion, a game of quizbowl should be uniform throughout, both in distribution and in style. Questions that deviate from the uniform nature of the remainder of the packet are, in nature, unfair. They compromise the integrity of the rest of the questions in the packet. In Illinois, computational math does not have this connotation because it has been established in the distribution - the majority of the nation, especially NAQT, does have this connotation and derides computational math in the way that I have described. I believe that so long as Illinois stresses computational math up to 25% of a packet, it will not strongly compete on a national level. The question isn't exactly whether it's harder or easier than the rest of the packet - it's whether it should be tested in such a packet at all. In my opinion, the answer is no. There are other, more suitable places for computational math to be tested.

As for non-computational math, math has a history as robust as any other science. There are dozens of mathematicians, hundreds of theorems and formulae, texts, functions, tools, devices, and stories. Many of it is not currently accessible because there isn't a means of studying math history in schools. At the rate the rest of the canon is expanding, studying is going to become impossible to avoid for even the weakest schools, and math history can be as easy to study as all the other categories. It'll grow to allow harder topics.[/b]

[OP_Huskies]

Regarding Brad's post:

I will begin by admitting that I am biased towards computational math, a fact with which anyone who knows me will attest.

Here is my deal with scholastic bowl: it tests knowledge of topics accessible via a standard (if advanced) high school curriculum. I am not naive enough to say that a high school curriculum teaches a player all the information he will ever encounter in quiz bowl, but the vast majority of the questions can be answered with a high school diploma, some study of excess literature, and a perfect memory. Is it only coincidence that the four subjects that account for 80% of every round are math, science, history, and English, four of the five core subjects of US curricula (the fifth being Foreign Language, which is excluded for obvious reason).

High school curricula do not delve into the history of and names behind mathematics. Think about it: you get Euclid, Pythagoras, Hero, Bramagupta, (all geometry), Descartes (only for rule of signs, mind you), DeMoivre, and a little bit of Gauss in pre-calc, and Newton, Leibnitz, L'Hopital in calc. I'm missing some, but my list can still be counted on two hands. Even if you go through high school taking the highest honors and AP tracks, you don't get any history of math. No Riemann Hypothesis, Goldbach's Conjecture, or Poincare Conjecture. No Euler, no Fermat, no Wiles, and no one contemporary. The only reason I know who these people are, what they have done and their contributions to the mathematical world is because I read about them outside of class. Of these the only one I even heard of in school was Euler.

A switch from computational math to math history will accomplish but one thing: that no one, save a handful (and I mean excessively small) of mathematically minded students will even have a shot of getting these questions. It will be like literature is now (only accessable fully through an inordinate amount of list study), only worse, because even I can chime in on the occasional literature question. And that is part of the beauty of quiz bowl: that even though I consider myself a math specialist, every othre subject is accessible to me.

Right now, though difficult, math comp is accessible to every student who does scholastic bowl. Not all can do it quickly or even in the time limit, but all can take a shot at it, just as even I can occasionally pick off a lit or fine arts question. Make a subject unaccessible to the vast majority of players, and you take an aspect away from the game.

And my strongest point: math history is not math. To be frank, having a vast knowledge of math history is useless unless it adds to your ability to understand math as is. At least at a high school level, your aptitude in other subjects is measured by what you know. Your aptitude in math is measured not by what you know, but how you apply what you know (chem and physics are in the middle of this continuum). Just as memorization of digits of pi is not math, math history is not math. It's good to know if you are intested in math, and deserves some place in quiz bowl, but not to replace computational math.

JB

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

Regarding Brad's post:

I will begin by admitting that I am biased towards computational math, a fact with which anyone who knows me will attest.

Here is my deal with scholastic bowl: it tests knowledge of topics accessible via a standard (if advanced) high school curriculum. I am not naive enough to say that a high school curriculum teaches a player all the information he will ever encounter in quiz bowl, but the vast majority of the questions can be answered with a high school diploma, some study of excess literature, and a perfect memory. Is it only coincidence that the four subjects that account for 80% of every round are math, science, history, and English, four of the five core subjects of US curricula (the fifth being Foreign Language, which is excluded for obvious reason).

High school curricula do not delve into the history of and names behind mathematics. Think about it: you get Euclid, Pythagoras, Hero, Bramagupta, (all geometry), Descartes (only for rule of signs, mind you), DeMoivre, and a little bit of Gauss in pre-calc, and Newton, Leibnitz, L'Hopital in calc. I'm missing some, but my list can still be counted on two hands. Even if you go through high school taking the highest honors and AP tracks, you don't get any history of math. No Riemann Hypothesis, Goldbach's Conjecture, or Poincare Conjecture. No Euler, no Fermat, no Wiles, and no one contemporary. The only reason I know who these people are, what they have done and their contributions to the mathematical world is because I read about them outside of class. Of these the only one I even heard of in school was Euler.

A switch from computational math to math history will accomplish but one thing: that no one, save a handful (and I mean excessively small) of mathematically minded students will even have a shot of getting these questions. It will be like literature is now (only accessable fully through an inordinate amount of list study), only worse, because even I can chime in on the occasional literature question. And that is part of the beauty of quiz bowl: that even though I consider myself a math specialist, every othre subject is accessible to me.

Right now, though difficult, math comp is accessible to every student who does scholastic bowl. Not all can do it quickly or even in the time limit, but all can take a shot at it, just as even I can occasionally pick off a lit or fine arts question. Make a subject unaccessible to the vast majority of players, and you take an aspect away from the game.

And my strongest point: math history is not math. To be frank, having a vast knowledge of math history is useless unless it adds to your ability to understand math as is. At least at a high school level, your aptitude in other subjects is measured by what you know. Your aptitude in math is measured not by what you know, but how you apply what you know (chem and physics are in the middle of this continuum). Just as memorization of digits of pi is not math, math history is not math. It's good to know if you are intested in math, and deserves some place in quiz bowl, but not to replace computational math.

JB

You bring up good points, but remember a few tenets included in my post.

1. Computational isn't killed, but rather reduced in importance. I still support computational math in the 30 question IHSA match, just as I still support pop culture and sports. In fact, I would propose giving it a similar fraction of the match, perhaps 2 tossups out of 30.

2. In additional to a smaller math distribution, mathematical history wouldn't take the entire non-computational distribution. Mathematical theory and implementation can also be written.

3. Literature is not only accessible via list study. While it is true that a list of authors is probably necessary to really become a good player, I would be willing to bet that the top lit players in the state do not exclusively study via memorizing lists and synopses. It is very important to read the full works, especially, ESPECIALLY in pyramidal style.

Math history can be studied for in the same light. Read biographies of the great mathematicians. Read reports on how the great discoveries were made. Perhaps a good list is necessary - the only reason a list like that isn't commonplace is because the questions aren't commonplace. This may, and hopefully will, change. Mathematical history is as important and interesting as the history behind any other science.

4. A good pyramidal question is written to ensure a high level of accessibility to players who study for that subject and a lower level of accessibility to players who don't, and this goes for any category, including computational math. For example, my senior year, I was the only player on my varsity team who had studied to get computational math, and therefore, was the only player who felt that math was accessible. In addition, I was the only player who was taking calculus and had taken trigonometry, so any and all varsity level math was inaccessible to anyone who didn't study. On teams with a strong math player (i.e. Wheaton North and Sterling) and teams with few upperclassmen, it's likely a similar story. Why should a category like math history be any different? It won't be mathematically minded students who get these questions - it'll be players who wish to study math history. As time goes on, the canon for math history will become established, and it'll be no different than Russian literature or European capitals (scratch that - it'll probably be better than rote memorization of capitals :))

Finally, the strongest tenet of my point of view: while math history may not be fundamental to the understanding of math, math theory is. The question of computational math can come down to this: "What would you like to test with a math question: the knowledge of how to do a problem, or the ability to do a problem quickly?" While quizbowl is a game of *quick* recall, the speed element is reduced in pyramidal questions, having been sacrificed for knowledge depth. With the lesser importance on speed, a similar shift should occur in mathematics, and the stress should be placed on "Do you know how to do this?" rather than "Do this quickly." As Illinois grows in pyramidal style, this will become more prevalent, I believe.

In a packet where every other question is pyramidal style, testing depth in knowledge, which of these (admittedly bad) questions would you rather have?
"Given triangle ABC with side AB of length 12, BC of length 9, and angle B of measure 45 degrees, find the length of side AC."
or
"It is a modified form of the Pythagorean Theorem that allows one to find an angle of a non-right triangle if one knows all three sides, or the side of a triangle if one knows the other two sides and the included angle. Identify this geometric law which uses a trigonometric function to assist in solving the triangle."

Each question tests the player on knowledge of the Law of Cosines, but the second style of question fits in with other questions of the packet both in pyramidal structure and (presumably) question length. The preceding style of question does not. While it is true that it is possible to write a pyramidal computational math question, it is simply not the same as a pyramidal non-comp math question, which I favor.

[OP_Huskies]

I like your idea of the "law of cosines." I guess I misinterpreted your proposal a bit ... I thought you wanted more "math history" than math theory.

I also now better understand your concerns about math computation--on second thought most math comp is pretty inaccessible ... I've never really thought about it that way because it has always come pretty easily to me.

However, I do feel like math comp deserves more credit than pop culture. I feel like the six math questions should go consist of 3 math comp, 2 theory (similar to your law of cosines) question, and 1 history.

One thing I still don't understand is how the theory thingy solves the problem of inaccessibility. The way I see it is, you either know the law of cosines or you don't, and if you know it you can apply it. The thought processes for the two questions should be similar: the first one you hear the problem, say to yourself "use law of cosines," and use law of cosines. The second you say to yourself "you would use the law of cosines," and then you buzz and say "law of cosines." Maybe part of me is a bit chained by my personal math ideology: I feel that you don't really know a concept unless you can apply it. This applies to pretty much every subject, though it exerts itself more forcefully in math.

JB

[1828459045]

regarding the problem e^.5, i do not see why it would be difficult (assuming you need to find it to two-three sig figs). One could use the backwards process outlined with squaring 5X with squaring 16/17. Most decent teams should have at least one person who knows that e is approximately equal to 2.718281828459045 (or at least 2.72). When we square 1.6, we get 2.56 (16^2=256), and when we square 1.7, we get 2.89 (17^2=289). Since 2.72 lies pretty much in between (in fact, 1.65^2=2.7225 is "in between" ) 1.65 (or 1.6) would be good guesses, and in fact, are the answers to their respective number of sig figs. IMHO, most decent teams should have at least one person who can rationalize an answer of 1.6/1.65 within the time-limit of 30 seconds.

I also like brad's idea of math knowledge/theory, but still think that if 1/5 of the toss-ups are math, over a long period of time, we would have many repeats. Another deterrent from this idea is that many current math calculations have no single underlying theory behind it, rather a blend of different concepts. (e. g. "Find the sum of the coefficients of the following (7z-5b)^2". The answer is 4, and is reached by substituting one for all variables and then evaluating. As far as I can remember, I never learned any formal principle or theorem etc. when I learned this concept)

Having a good mix of computational mathematics along with history and definitions etc. might solve the inequality (i love math puns) present in Illinois Scholastic Bowl.

I also believe someone mentioned that most of math history is not taught in high schools. To backtrack to previous posts, neither is quiz bowl literature. (I do remember reading the counterargument that remembering math history does not require math knowledge, but I would beg to differ. For example, in order to know "in depth" knowledge of say Fermat's last theorem, how it was proved (Wiles + non-euclidian geometry), what book Fermat wrote his hypothesis in (Arithmetica by Diophantus), etc., one must truly be interested and capable in mathematics to understand and remember these facts. ) (However, if some layman (in math) could remember and understand these in-depth facts, then there is also the point that remembering in-depth facts about literature also does not require one to be good at English (critical reading and writing alike), so in that analogy, should we limit literature questions since they are not true to the quiz bowlers necessity for "in-depth knowledge", "english 'skills'", and not simply memorization? I think not.)

Oh, and to introduce myself, I am a junior from Naperville Central.

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

One thing I still don't understand is how the theory thingy solves the problem of inaccessibility. The way I see it is, you either know the law of cosines or you don't, and if you know it you can apply it. The thought processes for the two questions should be similar: the first one you hear the problem, say to yourself "use law of cosines," and use law of cosines. The second you say to yourself "you would use the law of cosines," and then you buzz and say "law of cosines." Maybe part of me is a bit chained by my personal math ideology: I feel that you don't really know a concept unless you can apply it. This applies to pretty much every subject, though it exerts itself more forcefully in math.

Using theory instead of computation doesn't automatically make everything accessible. It's actually the pyramidal nature of theory questions that will make it more accessible. Unless the question writer is trying to write one of the 2 or 3 questions in a match that are really supposed to go dead unless it's a powerhouse team playing, any good pyramidal question, in any category, should be accessible to a good percentage of good players. My law of cosines tossup doesn't do a very good job of gradually getting easier, but I wrote it in 45 seconds without editing, so it's not surprising. Professional questions will do a better job of exhibiting accessibility.

regarding the problem e^.5, i do not see why it would be difficult (assuming you need to find it to two-three sig figs). One could use the backwards process outlined with squaring 5X with squaring 16/17. Most decent teams should have at least one person who knows that e is approximately equal to 2.718281828459045 (or at least 2.72). When we square 1.6, we get 2.56 (16^2=256), and when we square 1.7, we get 2.89 (17^2=289). Since 2.72 lies pretty much in between (in fact, 1.65^2=2.7225 is "in between" ) 1.65 (or 1.6) would be good guesses, and in fact, are the answers to their respective number of sig figs. IMHO, most decent teams should have at least one person who can rationalize an answer of 1.6/1.65 within the time-limit of 30 seconds.

I also like brad's idea of math knowledge/theory, but still think that if 1/5 of the toss-ups are math, over a long period of time, we would have many repeats. Another deterrent from this idea is that many current math calculations have no single underlying theory behind it, rather a blend of different concepts.

Having a good mix of computational mathematics along with history and definitions etc. might solve the inequality (i love math puns) present in Illinois Scholastic Bowl.

With 20% of a match being math, repeats will often arise in non-computational math questions. 2 things, though: 1: How is this any different than the 20 "find the derivative" problems you'll get in any given tournament? and 2: as computational math recedes in importance, the math distribution will also be reduced slightly. Perhaps 3/3 out of 30, with 3 computational and 3 non-computational mixed up between tossups and bonuses.

Also, Carlo could verify this, but I'm not sure that the conference questions are cleared for discussion yet. You might want to edit out the specifics of that question until it's verified clear to talk about it. :)

I also believe someone mentioned that most of math history is not taught in high schools. To backtrack to previous posts, neither is quiz bowl literature. (I do remember reading the counterargument that remembering math history does not require math knowledge, but I would beg to differ. For example, in order to know "in depth" knowledge of say Fermat's last theorem, how it was proved (Wiles + non-euclidian geometry), what book Fermat wrote his hypothesis in (Arithmetica by Diophantus), etc., one must truly be interested and capable in mathematics to understand and remember these facts. ) (However, if some layman (in math) could remember and understand these in-depth facts, then there is also the point that remembering in-depth facts about literature also does not require one to be good at English (critical reading and writing alike), so in that analogy, should we limit literature questions since they are not true to the quiz bowlers necessity for "in-depth knowledge", "english 'skills'", and not simply memorization? I think not.)

The comparison between quizbowl lit and non-comp math is a good point, and illustrates the point that only through independent study outside of school can anyone truly be good at quizbowl.

However, I don't think the final aside is wholly correct, and I think it lies in the players that we're testing. If a player studies and understands the mechanics behind a historical event (like Fermat's last theorem), I feel they're no longer a "layman" in mathematics, at least for the purpose of that question. They are, in my opinion, as studied in the subject as any mathematical mind. I think that quizbowl makes a strong distinction between this - it doesn't test people, it tests studying ability. Winnebago has only one senior this year, so everyone else would be considered a layman in terms of, say, calculus. However, the juniors who are better at math have studied quizbowl calculus because it's easy to grasp, and they've been able to get a question or two in computational calculus. The people themselves are not calculus people, but in terms of quizbowl, they're calculus players.

I think pyramidal questions will kill the era of the layman in Illinois quizbowl, and I think it will be good for the game. The idea that a layman could beat someone who studies indepthly into a subject is absolutely preposterous in pyramidal style, and I think that's a good change that needs to happen in Illinois.

[mlaird]

The guy with the numbers screen name needs to edit the Aegis Question out of his post and Brad, you need to edit your quote of him. Conference questions are not cleared until after the District 207 Championships.

[Stained Diviner]

1: How is this any different than the 20 "find the derivative" problems you'll get in any given tournament? and 2: as computational math recedes in importance, the math distribution will also be reduced slightly. Perhaps 3/3 out of 30, with 3 computational and 3 non-computational mixed up between tossups and bonuses.

1: In my experience there are a lot more askable computational questions than noncomputational. There are a lot of algebra word problems and different situations that can be arranged from the basic theorems of geometry, trigonometry, and calculus that are relevant to high school math. For noncomputational math, there just aren't that many different ideas that make for good pyramidal questions. If a tournament decides to break the ice by writing about a lot of mathematicians, that tournament will suffer from the fact that there will be a lot of unanswered questions by all teams present or it will keep asking about Newton, Leibniz, Pascal, and Euclid. Questions should reflect the topic they are asking about, and high school mathematics is less dependent on personalities and terms than other high school subjects.

Any tournament that asks to find derivatives of polynomials twenty times is bad--at least as far as its math questions is concerned. There is no reason to do it except laziness or ignorance. It is equivalent to making half the US History questions about the Civil War or the majority of biology questions about taxonomy.

2: The death of computational math in Illinois Scholastic Bowl is highly exaggerated. Anybody wishing for such a change should write a serious justification for the change, including what the questions should be replaced by, and send it to Ron McGraw and the IHSA Scholastic Bowl Advisory Committee by the end of March. (Same for anybody who wants to change any rules of Illinois Scholastic Bowl.)

[Trevkeeper]

ETC writes CRAP! I accidentally edited out your post when I should have quoted it. Sorry!!

PACE does something similar known as the All-Star/Scholars game.

Most of the summer camps will do mixing teams up. I have also done mixed chimeric teams for High School Celebrity Shoot. But I don't usually welcome a complete free-for-all mixer event for quiz bowl. Teachers probably have enough worries trying to keep up with their four kids on one team; try keeping up with four kids on four separate teams.

[leapfrog314]

To expand (hah! math!) upon Nick's reference: Before the actual competitions at the PAC begin, there is one night when the players can scrimmage. Last year, there were three rooms with six teams set up in each room; between each round, everyone gets up and sits somewhere random, and plays one round with the other three people at their desk. Several entire matches were played this way throughout the evening. No score is kept, it just warms everyone up and demonstrates how rounds are played, since the Panasonic rules are different from those of everyone else's home states.

I think it might be cool to have an open tournament available to any high-school students. They register as teams with whoever they want, and play the tournament in those teams. The problem is that only skilled players would come, and they would play with other skilled players. I don't think many teams would register at all. But it would be cool!

Is there any sort of open high-school tournament in the country already? I know there's a completely open tournament in Chicago, but the competition is, well, rather stiff.

[First Chairman]

Technically every high school tournament could open to any high school in the country from Vanderbilt to Case's tournament to Maryland to whoever.

Most nationals are open... you have to qualify first, but there are no other restrictions.

[mlaird]

Technically every high school tournament could open to any high school in the country from Vanderbilt to Case's tournament to Maryland to whoever.

Most nationals are open... you have to qualify first, but there are no other restrictions.

Carlo means "open" in the way that masters tournaments are open. He wants to play a tournament with a team of him and a bunch of other stud players from other schools. PAC and Chicago open are the only tournaments I can think of that have anything like this.

Carlo, Nick and I have contemplated Chicago Open many times, but then remember how humiliating scoring 10.0 PPG is.

[First Chairman]

PAC isn't exactly open though. You have to qualify through your state championship or selection procedure, but I would hardly consider that an "open event" nor consider PAC a standard tournament in the same sense.

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

I'm actually really, REALLY interested in running some form of informal quizbowl tournament after State Series this year at Rock Valley CC so that I can get some experience TD'ing before I run some official tournaments next fall. It'd have to be unlike Illinois QB somehow to avoid the wrath of IHSA, and an open tournament satisfies that qualification quite well.

You have a site. Continue talking as though it's possible, because it definitely is. Where would we get the questions? (NAQT set #66 looks good with one exception - the Midwest Championship at Culver. Other than that, there's no real NAQT set available at that time.) Moderators? (there's a real dearth of good quality, fast talking moderators in the area. I'm planning moderator discounts for the fall tourneys, and the same would probably apply here) Competitors? (because it'd be held at RVC, that opens up the Northern Illinois circuit as possible teams. While you may think, "Why would they want to come out just to get killed by the Chicago teams?" I've been coming up with ideas for that to get them to come to my fall tourneys :)) RVC's been good about hosting tournaments like this - they do ICTM regionals, WYSE regionals, and Science Olympiad regionals, plus one of Bago's coaches is a professor, so I've got a foot in the door there. Keep the ball rolling on this!

[Captain Sinico]

Various things.

He's talking about a tournament that allows teams comprised of students from different high schools, dude.

I don't know of any such tournament around here, but I suppose we'd consider doing something like that if there were sufficient demand. The problem is that it seems doubtful that the level of official support available to normal quizbowl teams would be available to teams at such a tournament so, given that the support level is already too low in many places, it doesn't seem like such an event would succeed.

MaS

[leapfrog314]

The problem is that it seems doubtful that the level of official support available to normal quizbowl teams would be available to teams at such a tournament so, given that the support level is already too low in many places, it doesn't seem like such an event would succeed.

Yeah, I would tend to agree. If there were, however, it would be a cool idea.

Perhaps one could be advertised to teams as well as individuals; many more people would be willing to go with their regular ol' teams anyway, than to organize a team with other players from other schools. (Besides, only the more dedicated players even know anyone from the other schools personally.) So what if it was advertised to high school teams in addition to individuals who might want to attend separate from their high school?

[OP_Huskies]

I kind of like this idea.

Even if we could get about 20 or 25 kids from across the state together for 4 or 5 teams, that would still be fun. I kinda like the idea of a "state all-star game" or "state all-star tourney."

Mebbe the top 4 or 5 or 6 specialists in each area, all jumbled up. You'd get some incredible matches.

JB

[First Chairman]

I would mention there is a problem in some circumstances where a team plays a chimeric "all-star" team... I know of at least one instance where if that happens, the "legit" team of four schoolmates winds up getting disqualified.

[AKKOLADE]

I would mention there is a problem in some circumstances where a team plays a chimeric "all-star" team... I know of at least one instance where if that happens, the "legit" team of four schoolmates winds up getting disqualified.

Hold on: the actual school team gets disqualified?

[First Chairman]

I would mention there is a problem in some circumstances where a team plays a chimeric "all-star" team... I know of at least one instance where if that happens, the "legit" team of four schoolmates winds up getting disqualified.

Hold on: the actual school team gets disqualified?

Yes, in the yes of that particular school's state org.

[Byko]

I would mention there is a problem in some circumstances where a team plays a chimeric "all-star" team... I know of at least one instance where if that happens, the "legit" team of four schoolmates winds up getting disqualified.

Hold on: the actual school team gets disqualified?

Yes, in the yes of that particular school's state org.

Remember, in some states, quiz bowl falls under the same jurisdiction as athletics. So in such cases, school teams cannot play against "all-star" teams or other teams that are not representative of a single school, and those that do, even if it's only in quiz bowl, can have their school's entire athletic program put on probation because of it. Does it make sense? No. Then again, in many cases, neither does putting quiz bowl under the same full rules and regulations of all other athletic competitions.

[Tegan]

In Illinois, the concern we have is playing teams that are not covered under a state's H.S. Association. That's a distinct minority of teams, but everytime I go out to an out-of-state tournament to play "officially", I need to submit a list of names.

[David Riley]

Wow....the above must hold the record for Egan's shortest post.

[AKKOLADE]

Remember, in some states, quiz bowl falls under the same jurisdiction as athletics. So in such cases, school teams cannot play against "all-star" teams or other teams that are not representative of a single school, and those that do, even if it's only in quiz bowl, can have their school's entire athletic program put on probation because of it. Does it make sense? No. Then again, in many cases, neither does putting quiz bowl under the same full rules and regulations of all other athletic competitions.

Wow. Just wow.

[Trevkeeper]

Apparently St. Ignatius is now in Sub-Sectional A (i.e. the one with OPRF, Fenwick, etc.) of the New Trier sectional.

[First Chairman]

Wow....the above must hold the record for Egan's shortest post.

This post is just six words long.

Wait a second...

[OP_Huskies]

Apparently St. Ignatius is now in Sub-Sectional A (i.e. the one with OPRF, Fenwick, etc.) of the New Trier sectional.

Well, looks like that's settled...not only does sub-sectional A have 15 (!) teams in it, but the NT sectional is as strong as it was last year, Marist is as weak as it was last year, and we will have at least 2 undeserving teams competing in Peoria.

JB

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

Apparently St. Ignatius is now in Sub-Sectional A (i.e. the one with OPRF, Fenwick, etc.) of the New Trier sectional.

Well, looks like that's settled...not only does sub-sectional A have 15 (!) teams in it, but the NT sectional is as strong as it was last year, Marist is as weak as it was last year, and we will have at least 2 undeserving teams competing in Peoria.

JB

The "2 undeserving teams" bash is at least 2, possibly 3 or more years old. Check it out (mainly because I'm too lazy/tired to) - I'm willing to bet that a good number of the 0-3 teams (or worst team in a pool) are from a weak Northeastern Illinois sectional. No one's going to be happy until we have a state championship that doesn't discriminate by location. (On a related note, I think NAQT state still has some spots open :))

[mlaird]

The thing that bothers me isn't so much the undeserving teams going to Peoria, it's the fully deserving teams that are left sitting in front of their computers, constantly refreshing the IHSA schobowl page. The fact that one of either Maine South or New Trier isn't going to Peoria already sees the state finals losing credibility.

[leapfrog314]

I definitely agree with Matt on this one. Sucks to not make it to State because there were three other teams in your sectional that also fully deserved to go.

Also, today's UIUC Solo Results (from Donald's tournament thread):

1st: Hunter Fast (Bloomington, Best Junior)
2nd: Nick Matchen (New Trier)
3rd: Carlo Angiuli (New Trier)
4th: Jared Carter (Decatur MacArthur)

[mlaird]

And also of interest, results from the WN F/S Falcon Classic:

1.) Auburn
2.) Loyola 'A'
3.) Stevenson
4.) Fremd

Quarterfinalists: New Trier, Fenwick, Wheaton Warrenville South, Moline

'B' Team Champion: Loyola 'B'

[Alejandro]

Results from Lincoln Way-East:

1. Naperville Central
2. Bradley-Bourbannais
3. Wheaton Warrenville South B
4. Marist

[Maxwell Sniffingwell]

The fact that one of either Maine South or New Trier isn't going to Peoria already sees the state finals losing credibility.

Make that five of either Maine South, Maine East, New Trier, Fenwick, OPRF, and St. Ignatius.

What kills me is that at least two of those teams won't even make it to SECTIONALS. Assuming that the 1 seed in each subsectional gets through, the 2 and 3 of each are going to have to get past each other... in particular, having Maine South, Maine East, and New Trier in the same SUBsectional seems a bit ridiculous. Any one of those teams could legimately make it downstate from a few of the other sectionals, but at least one of 'em won't even get their shot. St. I, Fenwick, and OPRF will have the exact same problem... and then the two winners from each of those groups get stuck vying for one spot in Peoria.

Y'know, sometimes I think we'd actually get a better State field with alphabetical regionals... but then I remember, that would put New Trier and the Maines together anyway. Go figure.

[OP_Huskies]

The fact that one of either Maine South or New Trier isn't going to Peoria already sees the state finals losing credibility.

Make that five of either Maine South, Maine East, New Trier, Fenwick, OPRF, and St. Ignatius.

What kills me is that at least two of those teams won't even make it to SECTIONALS. Assuming that the 1 seed in each subsectional gets through, the 2 and 3 of each are going to have to get past each other... in particular, having Maine South, Maine East, and New Trier in the same SUBsectional seems a bit ridiculous. Any one of those teams could legimately make it downstate from a few of the other sectionals, but at least one of 'em won't even get their shot. St. I, Fenwick, and OPRF will have the exact same problem... and then the two winners from each of those groups get stuck vying for one spot in Peoria.

Y'know, sometimes I think we'd actually get a better State field with alphabetical regionals... but then I remember, that would put New Trier and the Maines together anyway. Go figure.

And let's not forget Loyola or Deerfield ... Deerfield made a splash at regionals last year ... we dunno who could come out of the woodwork this year.

What's the qualifying process for NAQT state like? I'm going to try to talk my team into attending.

JB