Math As We Move Forward

[Dresden_The_BIG_JERK]

Moreover, there are many more high school kids who go home and crack open a work of Steinbeck or Hemingway than a math textbook.

Are you implying that only popular or more readily available academia is fit for quizbowl?

[AlphaQuizBowler]

Moreover, there are many more high school kids who go home and crack open a work of Steinbeck or Hemingway than a math textbook.

Are you implying that only popular or more readily available academia is fit for quizbowl?

No, I'm implying that the reason that the literature distribution is deservedly larger than the theoretical math distribution because there is more to ask about that high school students actuallly know. I was also refuting your faulty reasoning that its okay to ask about math that nobody learns about in school because that's what is asked for "50% of lit" by explaining that more people have knowledge of literature (even without contact with quizbowl) outside of the classroom than with math.

[kayli]

I never said that they were the same people. We say that math cannot have a 1/1 distribution in the curriculum because the questions are unaskable or that it interferes with the game because it messes with the distribution. Both of these problems already exist in trash yet we attack math much severely while keeping mum about getting rid of trash. Math is academic. Math has questions worth asking. Math questions reward academic knowledge. If we're going to complain about introducing math into quizbowl, then why are we not complaining about trash still being in the distribution? Although a lot of us would like to see trash gone, it seems more of us want math to go away. I've seen countless threads about getting rid of math or making the math distribution very low. I have seen almost no threads trying to do the same with trash. It is hypocritical to try to get rid of math while not trying to get rid of popular culture first.

How about we knock two birds out with one stone? Get rid of popular culture, and institute 1/1 math in its place.

[Matt Weiner]

I don't know who you're raging against; I have been unquestionably the biggest advocate of introducing math questions into quizbowl, for years now.

[kayli]

I'm really just raging against people who think we need less than 1/1 math or that it should be confined to the science distribution. I get a little too emotional when I talk about math -.-'.

[AlphaQuizBowler]

To address the issue of having no askable questions in the math canon: Of course we don't have a lot of askable questions. We haven't begun to write questions about the subjects. Who is going to know that Belgium was lead by the Rexist Party before World War II if no one has asked about it yet? Math has to have a place to start. If it means that we'll have to ask questions that will not get great conversions, then so be it. We have to get through the growing pains.

This is probably the best explanation for what would happen if we adopted a distribution high in theoretical math. To say that the only way to expand the math canon is to hit people over the head with them until they learn is a great critique against your position. Sure, after a while the good teams will convert math, but other teams will still have trouble. Believe it or not, some people don't study for the game or read old packets. I think to introduce one question a match that these teams can't answer is a bad idea.

I believe the argument that math questions will have near-impossible lead-ins for the high school level for clues like vector and polar coordinates are extremely faulty.

Prove me wrong. It shouldn't be that difficult to produce those two tossups in, say, a week.

[kayli]

This is probably the best explanation for what would happen if we adopted a distribution high in theoretical math. To say that the only way to expand the math canon is to hit people over the head with them until they learn is a great critique against your position. Sure, after a while the good teams will convert math, but other teams will still have trouble. Believe it or not, some people don't study for the game or read old packets. I think to introduce one question a match that these teams can't answer is a bad idea.

Those same teams would not get questions about Waugh until Brideshead Revisited or The Blithedale Romance... at all.

Prove me wrong. It shouldn't be that difficult to produce those two tossups in, say, a week.

I accept.

[AlphaQuizBowler]

This is probably the best explanation for what would happen if we adopted a distribution high in theoretical math. To say that the only way to expand the math canon is to hit people over the head with them until they learn is a great critique against your position. Sure, after a while the good teams will convert math, but other teams will still have trouble. Believe it or not, some people don't study for the game or read old packets. I think to introduce one question a match that these teams can't answer is a bad idea.

Those same teams would not get questions about Waugh until Brideshead Revisited or The Blithedale Romance... at all.

Perhaps, then, the difficulty we run up against is that there is not no regular "high school" difficulty, but instead two (or more). That seems, though, like a discussion for a different thread.

[Auks Ran Ova]

questions about Waugh until [...] The Blithedale Romance

Might want to, uh, check your facts there.

[AlphaQuizBowler]

questions about Waugh until [...] The Blithedale Romance

Might want to, uh, check your facts there.

Uh, I think you parsed his sentence wrong. I'm pretty sure he was saying: "Those same teams would not get questions about Waugh until Brideshead Revisited or [get questions on] The Blithedale Romance... at all.

[kayli]

questions about Waugh until [...] The Blithedale Romance

Might want to, uh, check your facts there.

Uh, I think you parsed his sentence wrong. I'm pretty sure he was saying: "Those same teams would not get questions about Waugh until Brideshead Revisited or [get questions on] The Blithedale Romance... at all.

Oh sorry. Yes, I meant what William said.

[Whiter Hydra]

I feel that Math should be included in the Science distribution in much the same way that Mythology is included in the Lit distribution. Specifically, there is a decent amount of overlap between the two, but yet they're different categories. (Though to be honest, this is all an issue of semantics -- I could call Trash part of a new 5/5 History distribution, but if the subdistros are kept the same, no one would be able to tell the difference.)

Also, I fail to see how putting in 1/1 math would turn Quizbowl into Science Bowl II. I mean, right now we're already at 13/13 humanities right now (History, RMP, Lit, Fine Arts), so it's not like we're approaching a critical threshold or anything.

[kayli]

I feel that Math should be included in the Science distribution in much the same way that Mythology is included in the Lit distribution. Specifically, there is a decent amount of overlap between the two, but yet they're different categories. (Though to be honest, this is all an issue of semantics -- I could call Trash part of a new 5/5 History distribution, but if the subdistros are kept the same, no one would be able to tell the difference.)

Also, I fail to see how putting in 1/1 math would turn Quizbowl into Science Bowl II. I mean, right now we're already at 13/13 humanities right now (History, RMP, Lit, Fine Arts), so it's not like we're approaching a critical threshold or anything.

Aren't religion, mythology, and philosophy in a completely different category?

[Whiter Hydra]

I feel that Math should be included in the Science distribution in much the same way that Mythology is included in the Lit distribution. Specifically, there is a decent amount of overlap between the two, but yet they're different categories. (Though to be honest, this is all an issue of semantics -- I could call Trash part of a new 5/5 History distribution, but if the subdistros are kept the same, no one would be able to tell the difference.)

Also, I fail to see how putting in 1/1 math would turn Quizbowl into Science Bowl II. I mean, right now we're already at 13/13 humanities right now (History, RMP, Lit, Fine Arts), so it's not like we're approaching a critical threshold or anything.

Aren't religion, mythology, and philosophy in a completely different category?

That's kinda the point.

[at your pleasure]

The problem with 1/1 math (in the sense of something that should be decided) is that automatic 1/1 math will squeeze out either 1/1 non-math other science, 1/1 legit humanities, or 1/1 trash. Now I personally would be happy to see trash banished in favor of 1/1 math, but there are probably some people who will object seriously to losing trash if most of their points are trash. If we resort to squeezing out 1/1 legit humanities(and I could see why it would be fairer to do this), should we drastically reduce a smaller humanities category or less-drastically reduce a major humanities category?

[kayli]

We've been crusading against math comp teams that liked it because it added to their point totals so I think we should crusade against trash teams. Trash is non-academic anyways. Getting rid of it would also allow us to bring in math. Boo trash. Yay math!

[grapesmoker]

Not that this has too much bearing on the high school distribution debate in here, but I wanted to note that I think the pairing of math with science makes sense from a practical perspective. At least at the college level, if you're doing any kind of serious science you will most likely have to do some math; in my case, I did a math BA because it required only a few additional classes to my physics degree, but there's a great deal of overlap there. The overlap decreases as you move farther from physics to sciences like biology, but I think that separating math into its own distinct category does in fact give an advantage to a generally science-strong team.

[Dresden_The_BIG_JERK]

Not that this has too much bearing on the high school distribution debate in here, but I wanted to note that I think the pairing of math with science makes sense from a practical perspective. At least at the college level, if you're doing any kind of serious science you will most likely have to do some math; in my case, I did a math BA because it required only a few additional classes to my physics degree, but there's a great deal of overlap there. The overlap decreases as you move farther from physics to sciences like biology, but I think that separating math into its own distinct category does in fact give an advantage to a generally science-strong team.

Ah, see physics is the one science exception. Chem has significantly less math and bio virtually none. And even physics-math and math^2 are different. Ever try to learn both systems of vectors at once?

IMHO math is currently neglected because of two things: the stigma attached to math because of computation and the fact that math is much more of a niche study. Nothing can be done about the first really, but as to the second, its quite unfair to neglect the discipline because it's less "in vogue". It's same to assume that everyone in quizbowl likes to read and sometimes learn a historical tidbit or two, but the fact is that not everyone does/likes/tolerates/verbs math. That doesn't make it any less academic though. As I've said before, 1/1 of an independent, non-science distribution should be a minimum.

[grapesmoker]

Ah, see physics is the one science exception. Chem has significantly less math and bio virtually none. And even physics-math and math^2 are different. Ever try to learn both systems of vectors at once?

Umm... yes? I am able to master multiple simple conventions at once, it's one of my many talents.

I'm not arguing against the point that at the high school level, biology is essentially math-free and chemistry nearly so. Even high school physics is generally taught with not all that much math in it. I'm just pointing out that at least at the college level, people who have a science background have an overwhelming advantage against non-scientists on math questions. How that translates to high school quizbowl is not entirely apparent to me, but I would not be at all surprised that those high school players who are good at science have a similarly large advantage over non-scientists, since generally those tend to be the people who do things like math team and so on. This is why I disagree with what Mike said upthread; I think that expanding the distribution to 4/4 science and 1/1 math gives a very strong advantage to these players. This wouldn't even be contemplated at the college level because of how huge that advantage is.

IMHO math is currently neglected because of two things: the stigma attached to math because of computation and the fact that math is much more of a niche study. Nothing can be done about the first really, but as to the second, its quite unfair to neglect the discipline because it's less "in vogue". It's same to assume that everyone in quizbowl likes to read and sometimes learn a historical tidbit or two, but the fact is that not everyone does/likes/tolerates/verbs math. That doesn't make it any less academic though. As I've said before, 1/1 of an independent, non-science distribution should be a minimum.

This is scary to me that you think 1/1 independent of science should be a minimum; presumably that means you would tolerate something like 2/2 math independent of science per round, which is unspeakably unfair to non-math people. Math should of course not be neglected for some faddish reason, but considerations of fairness are really important here, and by tacking math onto the distribution outside of science you are giving a huge advantage to science-heavy teams.

[Dresden_The_BIG_JERK]

I'm not arguing against the point that at the high school level, biology is essentially math-free and chemistry nearly so. Even high school physics is generally taught with not all that much math in it. I'm just pointing out that at least at the college level, people who have a science background have an overwhelming advantage against non-scientists on math questions. How that translates to high school quizbowl is not entirely apparent to me, but I would not be at all surprised that those high school players who are good at science have a similarly large advantage over non-scientists, since generally those tend to be the people who do things like math team and so on. This is why I disagree with what Mike said upthread; I think that expanding the distribution to 4/4 science and 1/1 math gives a very strong advantage to these players. This wouldn't even be contemplated at the college level because of how huge that advantage is.

A. I don't think 1/1 is that big an advantage, and B. How is that different from a "humanities" player having 12/12? Because there are more disciplines involved?

IMHO math is currently neglected because of two things: the stigma attached to math because of computation and the fact that math is much more of a niche study. Nothing can be done about the first really, but as to the second, its quite unfair to neglect the discipline because it's less "in vogue". It's same to assume that everyone in quizbowl likes to read and sometimes learn a historical tidbit or two, but the fact is that not everyone does/likes/tolerates/verbs math. That doesn't make it any less academic though. As I've said before, 1/1 of an independent, non-science distribution should be a minimum.

This is scary to me that you think 1/1 independent of science should be a minimum; presumably that means you would tolerate something like 2/2 math independent of science per round, which is unspeakably unfair to non-math people. Math should of course not be neglected for some faddish reason, but considerations of fairness are really important here, and by tacking math onto the distribution outside of science you are giving a huge advantage to science-heavy teams.

I really balk at the idea of unfairness to "non-math people". What about the disadvantage that "non-lit people" currently have, or "non-fine-arts people"? My argument is that Math is just as important academically as those topics and deserves its share of the distribution pie.

[grapesmoker]

A. I don't think 1/1 is that big an advantage, and B. How is that different from a "humanities" player having 12/12? Because there are more disciplines involved?

An imbalance of 1/1 is a huge difference in any reasonably close match. That's a possible 80 point swing. And yes, it is different because ability at literature does not equal ability at history or arts or philosophy. Obviously I'm pulling examples from the college categories again, but the collegiate game is replete with people who are good at one or two but not all of those disciplines. So "generic humanities player" is kind of a fiction in this case, but the fact that science players tend to know math much better than non-scientists is not.

I really balk at the idea of unfairness to "non-math people". What about the disadvantage that "non-lit people" currently have, or "non-fine-arts people"? My argument is that Math is just as important academically as those topics and deserves its share of the distribution pie.

Well, first of all literature is typically something like 20% of a packet; are you seriously advocating that another 20% should be math? Of course you are right that math does not get the same slice of the pie as literature and history, but I think that's fine (speaking as someone who would seriously benefit from such a redistribution). First of all, much of math (beyond the high school level) is highly technical and inaccessible to non-experts in a way that literature and history are not; that means that if you expand the math distribution you are effectively reducing the competitiveness of non-math players by locking them out of a question. Of course, covering the major areas of academic study is what quizbowl is about, which is why we have a science distribution in the first place, despite the fact that it does in fact lock some teams out of that question. But I don't see any evidence that the current distribution is somehow unfairly distributed. What's more, I don't see any evidence that enough good non-computational math questions can be written to fill your proposed distribution (forgive me, but the idea that you can write pyramidal questions on things like "vectors" and "polar coordinates" is just laughable). Academic importance is certainly a major factor in deciding how to set up a distribution, but I don't think it's the only factor. Balance is important here, and my impression is that putting your thumb on the scale in favor of math upsets a certain balance that's present in most distributions today, where the major areas of study (literature, science, and history) are equally weighted.

[Dresden_The_BIG_JERK]

A. I don't think 1/1 is that big an advantage, and B. How is that different from a "humanities" player having 12/12? Because there are more disciplines involved?

An imbalance of 1/1 is a huge difference in any reasonably close match. That's a possible 80 point swing. And yes, it is different because ability at literature does not equal ability at history or arts or philosophy. Obviously I'm pulling examples from the college categories again, but the collegiate game is replete with people who are good at one or two but not all of those disciplines. So "generic humanities player" is kind of a fiction in this case, but the fact that science players tend to know math much better than non-scientists is not.

Perhaps the generic humanities player does not exist, but using your syntax, I think you'll find that, for example, lit players know history better than non-lit (non history) players. In general I think that a "straight lit" player has more questions that they have a chance at than a "straight science" player, even with an extra 1/1 of math.

I really balk at the idea of unfairness to "non-math people". What about the disadvantage that "non-lit people" currently have, or "non-fine-arts people"? My argument is that Math is just as important academically as those topics and deserves its share of the distribution pie.

Well, first of all literature is typically something like 20% of a packet; are you seriously advocating that another 20% should be math? Of course you are right that math does not get the same slice of the pie as literature and history, but I think that's fine (speaking as someone who would seriously benefit from such a redistribution). First of all, much of math (beyond the high school level) is highly technical and inaccessible to non-experts in a way that literature and history are not; that means that if you expand the math distribution you are effectively reducing the competitiveness of non-math players by locking them out of a question.

I reserve the right to necessarily disagree on this, but for all intensive purposes, let's keep this to high school. The historical figures, basic theories etc that make fine question fodder are not so complex that anyone couldn't memorize the basic ideas.

Of course, covering the major areas of academic study is what quizbowl is about, which is why we have a science distribution in the first place, despite the fact that it does in fact lock some teams out of that question. But I don't see any evidence that the current distribution is somehow unfairly distributed.

I don't either. I'm not saying that a distribution with math is unfair, just that it doesn't represent all of academia the way it should

What's more, I don't see any evidence that enough good non-computational math questions can be written to fill your proposed distribution

The reason the evidence is not there is that most math in quizbowl has been computational or bust. For most places (particularly Illinois, pardon my bias) there has been no motivation to write a significant amount of non-comp before.

(forgive me, but the idea that you can write pyramidal questions on things like "vectors" and "polar coordinates" is just laughable).

I again disagree, but we'll see how Kay does with this. If they don't turn out so well, I'll probably take a stab at it. I really feel it's possible.

Academic importance is certainly a major factor in deciding how to set up a distribution, but I don't think it's the only factor. Balance is important here, and my impression is that putting your thumb on the scale in favor of math upsets a certain balance that's present in most distributions today, where the major areas of study (literature, science, and history) are equally weighted.

Related to the "fairness" issue above, I don't think that it will hurt the balance, just shift it a bit. I think its fine now, but could also be fine with math getting a piece of the pi (heh)

[grapesmoker]

Perhaps the generic humanities player does not exist, but using your syntax, I think you'll find that, for example, lit players know history better than non-lit (non history) players. In general I think that a "straight lit" player has more questions that they have a chance at than a "straight science" player, even with an extra 1/1 of math.

I'm not sure that's true. A good science student at the high school level will have taken biology, chemistry, and physics, in addition to whatever math is required as one progresses up the grade levels. So someone who is a straight-up science player is competitive on all those questions, just as a straight-up lit player is competitive on all lit questions. As for how well they compete on some third category like history, it's not at all clear that either one would have any particular advantage.

I reserve the right to necessarily disagree on this, but for all intensive purposes, let's keep this to high school. The historical figures, basic theories etc that make fine question fodder are not so complex that anyone couldn't memorize the basic ideas.

Sorry to be a pedant, but it's "for all intents and purposes." Anyway, my retrospective view is that to be good questions have to fall within a range of answer choices likely to be answered by players at the intended level and also have to be on topics that are complex enough to structure pyramidal questions on. Judging from my math experience in high school, which I think is fairly representative of many good math players, there isn't all that much in there that fits these criteria. I mean, Kay in this thread is talking about asking people about Fermat points, which is something I'd never heard of during an entire undergraduate degree's worth of math. That makes me question to what extent appropriate answer choices actually exist.

I don't either. I'm not saying that a distribution with math is unfair, just that it doesn't represent all of academia the way it should

I'm not sure I see the distinction here. In any case, it seems to me that this isn't much of an argument since others might say that it does represent academia the way it should. I don't see any compelling reason to pick one over the other.

The reason the evidence is not there is that most math in quizbowl has been computational or bust. For most places (particularly Illinois, pardon my bias) there has been no motivation to write a significant amount of non-comp before.

Fair enough; deciding this question should be an empirical matter. However, it seems to me a good starting point would be to include 1/1 math within the science distribution, see if enough such questions get written, and then if they do make the case for further expansion.

Related to the "fairness" issue above, I don't think that it will hurt the balance, just shift it a bit. I think its fine now, but could also be fine with math getting a piece of the pi (heh)

Again, your distinction between "shifting the balance" and "hurting it" ignores the point. I'm saying that by shifting the balance in such a way you are hurting it; my evidence for this is the empirical fact that good science players typically are much better at math than players of any other kind, whereas this kind of connection is not present among other fields to nearly the same degree.

[cvdwightw]

The problem with 1/1 math (in the sense of something that should be decided) is that automatic 1/1 math will squeeze out either 1/1 non-math other science, 1/1 legit humanities, or 1/1 trash. Now I personally would be happy to see trash banished in favor of 1/1 math, but there are probably some people who will object seriously to losing trash if most of their points are trash. If we resort to squeezing out 1/1 legit humanities(and I could see why it would be fairer to do this), should we drastically reduce a smaller humanities category or less-drastically reduce a major humanities category?

I disagree here. There is a fourth possibility you are ignoring here, and that is to group math as part of "Big Four" science (with biology, chemistry, and physics). As I've posted upthread, I'm not 100% sure there's enough difficulty-appropriate answer choices, especially in chemistry, to merit 1/1 across a slate of several tournaments. At this level, I would be fine with a 5/5 distribution of 1/1 bio, 1/1 chem, 1/1 physics, 1/1 math, 1/1 other, with a stipulation that 4/4 of that goes in the first 20/20 and what gets tossed into the tiebreakers rotates every round.

[Dresden_The_BIG_JERK]

The problem with 1/1 math (in the sense of something that should be decided) is that automatic 1/1 math will squeeze out either 1/1 non-math other science, 1/1 legit humanities, or 1/1 trash. Now I personally would be happy to see trash banished in favor of 1/1 math, but there are probably some people who will object seriously to losing trash if most of their points are trash. If we resort to squeezing out 1/1 legit humanities(and I could see why it would be fairer to do this), should we drastically reduce a smaller humanities category or less-drastically reduce a major humanities category?

I disagree here. There is a fourth possibility you are ignoring here, and that is to group math as part of "Big Four" science (with biology, chemistry, and physics). As I've posted upthread, I'm not 100% sure there's enough difficulty-appropriate answer choices, especially in chemistry, to merit 1/1 across a slate of several tournaments. At this level, I would be fine with a 5/5 distribution of 1/1 bio, 1/1 chem, 1/1 physics, 1/1 math, 1/1 other, with a stipulation that 4/4 of that goes in the first 20/20 and what gets tossed into the tiebreakers rotates every round.

Why must you do this to math? Apologizing in advance for the "shouting" but MATH <> SCIENCE!!!!! If you want to make it so science is 3/3 and math is 1/1 that's a different thing entirely (also disagree, but not the point here)...please please please for the love of pi do not try to make it seem as if math is a subcategory of science.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

I do think that we could alleviate some of this debate by noting that it would probably be a good idea to reduce the chemistry distribution a little bit at the high school level, and replace that with math, and then ask a little more math and have a couple questions about geology, astro, comp sci, and have all of that round out the 4/4, instead of increasing the numbers. It seems to me that there are some problems coming up with full tournaments worth of good chemistry questions, and this might alleviate that and solve some of this debate.

[Mechanical Beasts]

Whether math is a type of science or science a type of math or whether they're both types of synchronized swimming is irrelevant. What matters is whether math knowledge presents with science knowledge a whole lot more than it presents with, say, philosophy knowledge (or music knowledge, or knowledge of Sabrina the Teenage Witch).

Charlie is, of course, right here.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

Yeah, and at the high school level I think it's important to note that there is VERY little that is askable about the non-math minor science categories, so we could probably still end up with 1/1 math in the process.

[grapesmoker]

Why must you do this to math? Apologizing in advance for the "shouting" but MATH <> SCIENCE!!!!! If you want to make it so science is 3/3 and math is 1/1 that's a different thing entirely (also disagree, but not the point here)...please please please for the love of pi do not try to make it seem as if math is a subcategory of science.

You are on incredibly shaky ground here and I guarantee you that you do not want to go deeper into this debate. Whether math == science evaluates to TRUE is actually a non-trivial question, one which debates on hsqb will not resolve. However, it is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion, which simply hinges on the empirically verifiable fact that knowledge of science correlates very well with knowledge of math.

[Dresden_The_BIG_JERK]

Whether math is a type of science or science a type of math or whether they're both types of synchronized swimming is irrelevant. What matters is whether math knowledge presents with science knowledge a whole lot more than it presents with, say, philosophy knowledge (or music knowledge, or knowledge of Sabrina the Teenage Witch).

Charlie is, of course, right here.

What it is "closest" to is irrelevant. Math is not science and science is not math. This is a non-issue, and insulting to both disciplines. As I said, feel free to take the 1/1 for math out of science's share of the distribution, but at least have the decency to label it as science 3/3 and math 1/1.

Yeah, and at the high school level I think it's important to note that there is VERY little that is askable about the non-math minor science categories, so we could probably still end up with 1/1 math in the process.

I also disagree with this. There is more than enough high school available geology/astronomy/meteorology etc to fill 1/1 a tournament. None of them could do it alone, certainly, but there's enough high school fringe science to fill a tournament just fine.

Why must you do this to math?
Apologizing in advance for the "shouting" but MATH <> SCIENCE!!!!! If you want to make it so science is 3/3 and math is 1/1 that's a different thing entirely (also disagree, but not the point here)...please please please for the love of pi do not try to make it seem as if math is a subcategory of science.

You are on incredibly shaky ground here and I guarantee you that you do not want to go deeper into this debate.

I actually probably would like to, but we can agree that this is not the time and place

Whether math == science evaluates to TRUE is actually a non-trivial question, one which debates on hsqb will not resolve. However, it is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion, which simply hinges on the empirically verifiable fact that knowledge of science correlates very well with knowledge of math.

I think this can be true when we're talking about computational math in particular, but for the type of questions we're discussing, I'm not even sure this is true. Other than the argument of "someone who studies science is more likely to study math" there is very little (approaching zero) overlap in the question space. Certainly there have been scholars who were notable scientists and mathematicians, but this is the exception, not the rule. The concepts are often different, and the theories of mathematics generally have no relevence to science. So while, yes, they both involve manipulation of number, math deserves to be its own distribution, not the red-headed stepchild of science.

[Mechanical Beasts]

What it is "closest" to is irrelevant. Math is not science and science is not math. This is a non-issue, and insulting to both disciplines. As I said, feel free to take the 1/1 for math out of science's share of the distribution, but at least have the decency to label it as science 3/3 and math 1/1.

Somehow, you are the only person insulted by the notion of putting math under science. It's not a question of ideological agenda; it's a question of convenience.

I also disagree with this. There is more than enough high school available geology/astronomy/meteorology etc to fill 1/1 a tournament. None of them could do it alone, certainly, but there's enough high school fringe science to fill a tournament just fine.

Have you ever written 15/15 non-repeating material in those subjects that would work well in one high-school tournament? If so, I'd love to see it.

[cvdwightw]

Why must you do this to math? Apologizing in advance for the "shouting" but MATH <> SCIENCE!!!!! If you want to make it so science is 3/3 and math is 1/1 that's a different thing entirely (also disagree, but not the point here)...please please please for the love of pi do not try to make it seem as if math is a subcategory of science.

At least two institutions of higher learning disagree with you. Now, whether this is a philosophical truism is, as Jerry says, a topic that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. What is relevant is that at least two universities with relatively well-respected science programs group math together with other disciplines as a subcategory of "physical science."

What we have, then, is a complete dichotomy between the high school, which completely separates math from other sciences, and the university, which groups math with various other sciences. Now, I'd like to think that this dichotomy stems from the fact that governmental standards pretty much mandate that everyone can add 2+2, solve x+3 = 8, and figure out what the angles of a triangle add up to, whereas the government could care less whether you understand the purpose of the nucleus of the cell, why mixing ammonia and bleach is a bad thing, or why it's harder to move a heavy object at rest than to keep a heavy object moving at constant speed.

[Dresden_The_BIG_JERK]

What it is "closest" to is irrelevant. Math is not science and science is not math. This is a non-issue, and insulting to both disciplines. As I said, feel free to take the 1/1 for math out of science's share of the distribution, but at least have the decency to label it as science 3/3 and math 1/1.

Somehow, you are the only person insulted by the notion of putting math under science. It's not a question of ideological agenda; it's a question of convenience.

How is Science: 4/4 easier than saying Science 3/3, Math 1/1?

Why must you do this to math? Apologizing in advance for the "shouting" but MATH <> SCIENCE!!!!! If you want to make it so science is 3/3 and math is 1/1 that's a different thing entirely (also disagree, but not the point here)...please please please for the love of pi do not try to make it seem as if math is a subcategory of science.

At least two institutions of higher learning disagree with you. Now, whether this is a philosophical truism is, as Jerry says, a topic that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. What is relevant is that at least two universities with relatively well-respected science programs group math together with other disciplines as a subcategory of "physical science."

What we have, then, is a complete dichotomy between the high school, which completely separates math from other sciences, and the university, which groups math with various other sciences. Now, I'd like to think that this dichotomy stems from the fact that governmental standards pretty much mandate that everyone can add 2+2, solve x+3 = 8, and figure out what the angles of a triangle add up to, whereas the government could care less whether you understand the purpose of the nucleus of the cell, why mixing ammonia and bleach is a bad thing, or why it's harder to move a heavy object at rest than to keep a heavy object moving at constant speed.

Unfortunately for me then, we may be entering the point where it is more my stubborn opinion than academic consensus, but I refuse to lump Mathematics (and computer science, not a science at all(kind of, this is a separate pet peeve of mine)) with the physical sciences. At best, I feel the argument you can make is that science is applied mathematics, although at higher levels, math is generally often theoretical anyway. Regardless, I feel that this argument is akin to putting French classes in the literature department because French literature is applied French.

This is really all gone beyond the purpose of this thread, so to bring it back on track, the argument I'm trying to make is that A. Mathematics deserve a 1/1 distribution and B. they should be labeled seperately (certainly at the h.s. level) from science.

[Whiter Hydra]

As someone who has tried writing HS astronomy questions and as someone who has sat through lots of HS astronomy questions, I can say that it's hard to expect people to write a good astro tossup that isn't either transparent, vague, or just poorly written. And fro mwhat I've heard, the same goes with most of the other minor sciences.

I'm not sure that's true. A good science student at the high school level will have taken biology, chemistry, and physics, in addition to whatever math is required as one progresses up the grade levels. So someone who is a straight-up science player is competitive on all those questions, just as a straight-up lit player is competitive on all lit questions.

I'd like to think that I am rather good at physics (well, in high school at least), but I have almost no knowledge of biology.

[grapesmoker]

I think this can be true when we're talking about computational math in particular, but for the type of questions we're discussing, I'm not even sure this is true.

Well, I'm telling you that this is empirically true at the college level. Just survey science players in college and you'll get a ridiculous amount of overlap that has nothing to do with computation. It's just a fact that scientists, especially but not limited to physicists, know a lot of math. They have to; math is the language we work in.

Other than the argument of "someone who studies science is more likely to study math" there is very little (approaching zero) overlap in the question space. Certainly there have been scholars who were notable scientists and mathematicians, but this is the exception, not the rule. The concepts are often different, and the theories of mathematics generally have no relevence to science. So while, yes, they both involve manipulation of number, math deserves to be its own distribution, not the red-headed stepchild of science.

I'm sorry, but this is flat-out false. It's just totally, completely wrong. I'm telling you as someone who has been in a scientific field for years that I have never encountered a scientist who would agree with this statement. I don't think you'll find a single quizbowl person well-versed in science who would agree with it either and there's a good reason for that (the statement is false). Your bit about computer science not being a science is equally incorrect.

While this is moving us somewhat from the main topic of discussion, I think this is relevant to resolve, because a key part of my argument against the 4/4 science + 1/1 math idea hinges on the fact that there's a strong correlation between being good at science and being good at math. You've tried to attack my counterargument by denying this correlation, which is a bizarre move given how obvious and self-evident of a statement I'm making. I think it's important that, even if I don't convince you, I point out the incorrectness of your position because it might help convince others that the logic here is straightforward: tacking on an additional 1/1 required math gives a strong advantage to science-heavy teams in a way that 1/1 music does not give a strong advantage to good literature teams.

[Whiter Hydra]

While this is moving us somewhat from the main topic of discussion, I think this is relevant to resolve, because a key part of my argument against the 4/4 science + 1/1 math idea hinges on the fact that there's a strong correlation between being good at science and being good at math. You've tried to attack my counterargument by denying this correlation, which is a bizarre move given how obvious and self-evident of a statement I'm making. I think it's important that, even if I don't convince you, I point out the incorrectness of your position because it might help convince others that the logic here is straightforward: tacking on an additional 1/1 required math gives a strong advantage to science-heavy teams in a way that 1/1 music does not give a strong advantage to good literature teams.

One thing that I find unique about science is that it's a relatively isolated subject. If you know history, you'll probably know a decent amount of CE, religion, and mythology just because of the overlaps. Same thing with literature and RM, or fine arts and literature... you get the picture. On the other hand, if you know science (which is in itself a tough thing to do, since science is rather diverse), you don't exactly have that many avenues to broaden your knowledge without starting from scratch.

[Dresden_The_BIG_JERK]

I think this can be true when we're talking about computational math in particular, but for the type of questions we're discussing, I'm not even sure this is true.

Well, I'm telling you that this is empirically true at the college level. Just survey science players in college and you'll get a ridiculous amount of overlap that has nothing to do with computation. It's just a fact that scientists, especially but not limited to physicists, know a lot of math. They have to; math is the language we work in.

This has partially to do with my lack of knowledge in physics(my only physics was in high school and I hated it), and I may be very very wrong in this statment, but in my limited experience, the math needed for science has been relatively simplistic(categorizing calculus as 'relatively simplistic' as opposed to say, theoretical divisions of numbers and non-Euclidean geometry, not to life in general), primarily plugging into formulas.

Other than the argument of "someone who studies science is more likely to study math" there is very little (approaching zero) overlap in the question space. Certainly there have been scholars who were notable scientists and mathematicians, but this is the exception, not the rule. The concepts are often different, and the theories of mathematics generally have no relevence to science. So while, yes, they both involve manipulation of number, math deserves to be its own distribution, not the red-headed stepchild of science.

I'm sorry, but this is flat-out false. It's just totally, completely wrong. I'm telling you as someone who has been in a scientific field for years that I have never encountered a scientist who would agree with this statement. I don't think you'll find a single quizbowl person well-versed in science who would agree with it either and there's a good reason for that (the statement is false).

Again, this relates to what math we're talking about...if by theories of mathematics we mean the fundamental theorem of calculus and the commutative property than sure, but I'm working under the assumption that a good part of the distribution would be from more theoretical reaches.

Your bit about computer science not being a science is equally incorrect.

As I said, this is a pet peeve of mine. I think that computer science has long since passed the point that it needs to be divided into two divisions, roughly hardware and software. Hardware is all science, what with the electric pulses, flipping bits, accessing memory etc. Software on the other hand has moved on from the physical punchcards of the past and moved into its own right as a seperate aspect. There's a reason IT manager and software developer are not the same job.

While this is moving us somewhat from the main topic of discussion, I think this is relevant to resolve, because a key part of my argument against the 4/4 science + 1/1 math idea hinges on the fact that there's a strong correlation between being good at science and being good at math. You've tried to attack my counterargument by denying this correlation, which is a bizarre move given how obvious and self-evident of a statement I'm making. I think it's important that, even if I don't convince you, I point out the incorrectness of your position because it might help convince others that the logic here is straightforward: tacking on an additional 1/1 required math gives a strong advantage to science-heavy teams in a way that 1/1 music does not give a strong advantage to good literature teams.

I think the problem here is acknowledging the difference between high school and college. In the much less specialized world of high school, I don't think the correlation between science player and mathematics player is necessarily any higher than between lit player and fine arts players. In college, I'd be much more inclined to agree that that would cause unfair tipping of the balance; in high school, I really don't think it would.

One thing that I find unique about science is that it's a relatively isolated subject. If you know history, you'll probably know a decent amount of CE, religion, and mythology just because of the overlaps. Same thing with literature and RM, or fine arts and literature... you get the picture. On the other hand, if you know science (which is in itself a tough thing to do, since science is rather diverse), you don't exactly have that many avenues to broaden your knowledge without starting from scratch.

Also, I agree with this; well put sir.

[grapesmoker]

One thing that I find unique about science is that it's a relatively isolated subject. If you know history, you'll probably know a decent amount of CE, religion, and mythology just because of the overlaps. Same thing with literature and RM, or fine arts and literature... you get the picture. On the other hand, if you know science (which is in itself a tough thing to do, since science is rather diverse), you don't exactly have that many avenues to broaden your knowledge without starting from scratch.

Where is the overlap with knowing about Bismarck's Prussia and having read the Enuma Elish? The overlap between myth and literature is somewhat greater, but you can very easily be a well-read person and still not know a whole lot of the latter; in fact, in my experience most good lit players are actually rather mediocre on myth. I think the case for this type of cross-disciplinary mastery is not nearly as strong as the case for dual mastery of science and math.

[cvdwightw]

Unfortunately for me then, we may be entering the point where it is more my stubborn opinion than academic consensus, but I refuse to lump Mathematics (and computer science, not a science at all(kind of, this is a separate pet peeve of mine)) with the physical sciences.

Last I checked, most high schools make CS a "science elective" if they offer any kind of it, and most universities have it as part of the engineering department (which is for all intents and purposes grouped with science because no one wants to write 1/1 engineering per tournament).

At best, I feel the argument you can make is that science is applied mathematics, although at higher levels, math is generally often theoretical anyway. Regardless, I feel that this argument is akin to putting French classes in the literature department because French literature is applied French.

I'm not making anything even close or relevant to that argument (regardless of whether or not you're wrong, which I'll leave to others, since my math experience was clearly skewed by taking such practical things as probability and statistics instead of theoretical things like algebra, topology, and number theory). I'm using the same exact argument that I'm making in the Great Geography Debate over at the college section: we should group geography (math) in social science (science) because that's how it is grouped at the university level; however, geography (math) is both important enough and distinct enough from the other categories in its grouping to deserve a concrete subdistribution of at least 1 question per packet.

Also, "...to fulfill the English Department's requirement, students entering UCLA in 1988 or after must complete the equivalent of two additional classes of either foreign language or foreign literature in translation after completing the College of Letters and Science requirement. (source) Sure, maybe this isn't exactly the same thing, but it sure is the same thing as saying that science people need to take math. Again, maybe I'm completely crazy and the position of reference to what is done at the university level is completely untenable in any discussion of what goes on at the high school level, but I'd just like to note that your analogy holds no water (especially at the high school level, where AP English Literature classes routinely include works-in-translation from other languages).

This is really all gone beyond the purpose of this thread, so to bring it back on track, the argument I'm trying to make is that A. Mathematics deserve a 1/1 distribution and B. they should be labeled seperately (certainly at the h.s. level) from science.

A. You have failed to convince me that mathematics deserves a 1/1 distribution, and like I said above, I'm completely in favor of at least one question per packet and possibly two. In order for math to merit a bump to 1/1 per packet, it needs to be demonstrated that a tournament full of 1/1 accessible math is possible. I believe such a thing to be true, but every example in this thread of a "high school appropriate answer choice" has been ludicrously difficult.

B. We're arguing about SEMANTICS!? The set of people who care about the place of math in the high school game is roughly equivalent to the set of people who care about the high school game. The set of people who care that math has a top-level place as a "category" instead of a "subcategory" is roughly constrained to the set of people in states where a state association mandates strict adherence to the curriculum.

Again, this relates to what math we're talking about...if by theories of mathematics we mean the fundamental theorem of calculus and the commutative property than sure, but I'm working under the assumption that a good part of the distribution would be from more theoretical reaches.

Let me rephrase this: "My argument that mathematics deserves to be a top-level category deserving of 1/1 per packet rests on the assumption that most of the questions in this category will be from areas that are typically taken as upperclassmen in college and therefore will be converted by less than 100 people in the entire country."

This is the argument that sickens me the most. I don't mean to have me/Jerry/Andy/Charlie/everyone else ganging up on you, but you're patently wrong. I hope you see where you're wrong, because if you can't, I'm tired of explaining why "hey let's write on impossible things" is terrible.

[Pilgrim]

There's a reason IT manager and software developer are not the same job.

And neither has anything to do with theoretical computer science, which is assuredly a science.

[cvdwightw]

Where is the overlap with knowing about Bismarck's Prussia and having read the Enuma Elish? The overlap between myth and literature is somewhat greater, but you can very easily be a well-read person and still not know a whole lot of the latter; in fact, in my experience most good lit players are actually rather mediocre on myth. I think the case for this type of cross-disciplinary mastery is not nearly as strong as the case for dual mastery of science and math.

I wouldn't go quite this far, Jerry. At the university level, I'm not sure that it's true (I for one have my supposed strongest areas in parts of mathematics that come up maybe once a tournament; I don't know anything about those theoretical reaches of algebra/topology/what have you). At the high school level, I would be pretty confident that good science people are also good at math, though I would be hesitant about the converse. I knew a few good math people in high school who couldn't do science, but I don't think I knew anyone who was good at science and not good at math.

[grapesmoker]

This has partially to do with my lack of knowledge in physics(my only physics was in high school and I hated it), and I may be very very wrong in this statment, but in my limited experience, the math needed for science has been relatively simplistic(categorizing calculus as 'relatively simplistic' as opposed to say, theoretical divisions of numbers and non-Euclidean geometry, not to life in general), primarily plugging into formulas.

Right, so again, I'm saying that this is incorrect. Many, many areas of mathematics are directly applicable to physics, at a level not much beyond calculus (if at all beyond it). Just to throw out an example, group theory, which is something you could teach in relatively simplified form to most advanced high school students, is directly relevant to quantum mechanics and chemistry.

Again, this relates to what math we're talking about...if by theories of mathematics we mean the fundamental theorem of calculus and the commutative property than sure, but I'm working under the assumption that a good part of the distribution would be from more theoretical reaches.

At more theoretical levels the tie-ins between math and other sciences are even greater. Group theory, as I've mentioned above, is one example. I can provide any number of other examples, but I'm hoping you'll just trust my experience on this.

As I said, this is a pet peeve of mine. I think that computer science has long since passed the point that it needs to be divided into two divisions, roughly hardware and software. Hardware is all science, what with the electric pulses, flipping bits, accessing memory etc. Software on the other hand has moved on from the physical punchcards of the past and moved into its own right as a seperate aspect. There's a reason IT manager and software developer are not the same job.

We're discussing disparate things. The relative roles of IT managers and software developers are not the right things to be looking at. Computer science, as it has been practiced and studied for at least the last 50 years, is a) very much a science, and b) heavily indebted to mathematics. For example, Shannon's formulation of information entropy is directly related to both the physical concept of entropy and the mathematics of probability which make that concept work out. That's just the most obvious thing that occurred to me but there are other examples; again, I hope you'll trust my word on this.

I think the problem here is acknowledging the difference between high school and college. In the much less specialized world of high school, I don't think the correlation between science player and mathematics player is necessarily any higher than between lit player and fine arts players. In college, I'd be much more inclined to agree that that would cause unfair tipping of the balance; in high school, I really don't think it would.

I'm wondering as to why you wouldn't think so. It's certainly been true in my personal experience and in my interactions with other people who did a lot of science in high school.

Of course, we'll get to see if it's true or not if such a proposal is implemented. The null hypothesis is, teams that currently get a lot of points from science will not experience any improvement in their PPG. I predict the null hypothesis will be falsified and we'll see an increase in PPG among teams that feature good science players. Of course, we'll need to know which teams are considered to be good at science but that shouldn't be too hard. Maybe if someday I have nothing useful to do I might make a little toy model and run some simulations.

[theMoMA]

I do think this discussion exposes math as underrepresented in the high school distribution. So I'm just wondering, do most people agree that in high school, math should be bumped up to a privileged status in the other science distribution, and chemistry should be bumped down to a similar status, and that chem/math/astro/earth sci/comp sci/geology should take up 2/2 of the first 20/20, with more emphasis on the first two?

[kayli]

If I'm not mistaken, ACF format is:
4/4 literature
4/4 history
4/4 science
3/3 arts
2/2 religion, mythology, and philosophy
1/1 social science
1/1 geography
1/1 trash, current events, or miscellaneous

I'd argue that history people would naturally be good at social science and geography. Right? So that gives them 6/6.

Literature people would probably be good at RMP and/or arts. Right? So that's possibly 6/6 (literature and RMP), 7/7 (literature and arts), or 9/9 (literature, RMP, and arts).

A science person would get 4/4 science at this point.

Anyone can get trash. If we feel like stereotyping, we could say that math and science people would get it less often than history or lit people; but let's not.

From this, it appears science and math people seem to be shafted a little.

Pardon my boldness (bad um chhh) but I'd say a good compromise is to get rid of trash and replace it with math. Why does trash still exist?

[Nine-Tenths Ideas]

I'd argue that history people would naturally be good at social science and geography. Right? So that gives them 6/6.

Um, no.

Nobody is "naturally good" at anything, and often, geo questions are completely different breeds of dog than history tossups.

[kayli]

Perhaps naturally good isn't the best phrase to use. But they typically have an advantage in those categories, yes?

[at your pleasure]

Arsonists Get All The Girls wrote:
Perhaps naturally good isn't the best phrase to use. But they typically have an advantage in those categories, yes?

Insofar as they study how it affected history, I suppose so. But no, being a good history player does not magically enable you to memorize the tributaries of the Bramahuptra better than a science person could. However, I agree with your proposition that we axe trash(where it exists) to make room for the math(assuming that enough can be written).

[AKKOLADE]

I'm glad we all agree math theory should be featured more prominently in place of math calculation.

[Tanay]

Literature people would probably be good at RMP and/or arts. Right?

No. Not at all. How and why is this true? Religion (Jainism, Druze, Rosh Hashanah) is closer to history/geography/social studies than to literature. And the arts? Huh?

A science person would get 4/4 science at this point.

This is entirely based on your own categorization of who is good at what. There is no reason that a "science person" cannot be good at the arts, or that a "literature person" has an advantage in that category, or in religion. I am an "anthropology person", for what it's worth, but that shouldn't entitle me to a proportional piece of the pie just because it's academically important, if I'm not willing to get up and study another subject.

From this, it appears science and math people seem to be shafted a little.

Well, sure, if you assume that a "science and math" person isn't good at anything else. If you're only focusing on two categories (science and math) while you're consciously aware that there are 8-10 different categories in quiz bowl, you shouldn't complain about getting shafted. You're getting a bit more than 1/4th of the questions in high school (6.7 out of 26 according to HSNCT distribution) for studying two categories and not worrying at all about the rest. Your Literature/Art/RMP categorization is 6.8 tossups per 26 as per HSNCT distribution (relevant when we're discussing the direction of the high school canon), and covers one of the big three as well as art, acknowledged to be the fourth largest category. In short, your enormous categorization fails because you expect that studying for your two categories should exceed studying for religion, mythology, philosophy, the arts, and literature. You operate by falsely grouping categories and think that you are being shafted, when, according to HSNCT (the most relevant for the high school canon, since ACF doesn't come into play until college, and we've already established that college has a liberal arts bias) you are in fact getting the benefit of the doubt, since the difference in distribution (6.8 to 6.7) favors people who focus only on those two topics.

[grapesmoker]

I'd argue that history people would naturally be good at social science and geography. Right? So that gives them 6/6.

In the parlance of our times, YOUR ARE WRONG.

Literature people would probably be good at RMP and/or arts. Right? So that's possibly 6/6 (literature and RMP), 7/7 (literature and arts), or 9/9 (literature, RMP, and arts).

Also not true. While some lit players are also quite good at arts (Jonathan and Ted come to mind) they are good at those categories independently of their literature knowledge.

From this, it appears science and math people seem to be shafted a little.

Yes, from your faulty assumptions you have derived a faulty conclusion. Congratulations.

Pardon my boldness (bad um chhh) but I'd say a good compromise is to get rid of trash and replace it with math. Why does trash still exist?

You'll never hear me advocating to keep trash, but that seems entirely beside the point in this debate.