2008 ICT Question Survey

This survey is designed to gather feedback from players and coaches about the questions used at NAQT's 2008 Intercollegiate Championship Tournament. It does not pertain to NAQT's high school sets, invitational series, or intramural questions. If you have feedback about those, please do not use this form as it will only confuse results. Please send your feedback directly to NAQT at feedback@naqt.com.

You do not need to have competed at the 2008 SCT or ICT to provide feedback using this survey.

In addition, this survey only covers topics directly related to the questions. Logistical and more general policy issues will be addressed in a future survey.

Respondent

Are you a player or a coach?
At what level do you compete (or coach competing teams)?
In which playoff bracket did your team finish at the 2008 ICT? (Team standings)

Distribution

Please indicate whether you think each of these subjects should be greatly decreased, somewhat decreased, kept the same, slightly increased, or substantially increased in NAQT's collegiate sets. The current percentage of the set (rounded to 0.1%) is provided as a guide.

Difficulty

If you were at the 2008 ICT, please indicate whether you think the questions in the following categories were generally too hard, about right, or too easy. If you were not at the 2008 ICT, please leave this section blank.

Question Styles

How do you feel about tossups or bonus parts that require the actual computation of a numerical answer to demonstrate knowledge and application of scientific laws and principles? (The law isn't given in the question.)

Translating physical situations to mathematics and evaluating an answer is an important part of scientific knowledge; this kind of bonus part has a definite place in quiz bowl so long as the numbers chosen are easy to work with.
I don't care.
That sort of translation may be important, but it has no place in quiz bowl, which is not about computation.
That sort of translation is not fundamentally academic and therefore has no place in quiz bowl.

How do you feel about "word problem" tossups that are answered through pure mathematics (combinations, permutations, statistics, geometry, whatever)? If that's not clear, we're talking about "computation tossups" as normally seen in NAQT's Invitational Series.

The ability to understand and rapidly apply basic mathematics is an important skill and one that is easily tested in the quiz bowl format. There should be lots of such questions!
The ability to understand and rapidly apply basic mathematics is an important skill and one that is easily tested in the quiz bowl format; there should be a few such questions in an SCT or ICT set.
I don't care.
Such an ability may be important, but it's not taught in colleges and therefore doesn't belong in college quiz bowl.
I just don't like such questions.

How do you feel about cross-disciplinary questions in which clues come from a variety of subjects?

I like the variety and hope to see these questions continue in use. Just make sure they don't radically change the overall distribution, particularly of non-academic material.
I like these questions particularly because they reduce the number of questions on which players "put their buzzer down" since subsequent clues may be from their area of expertise. And, of course, make sure they don't radically change the overall distribution.
I don't care.
I dislike these questions because they make it impossible to exactly balance a packet among the various subject areas.
I dislike these questions because I feel that, whatever the intentions, they always end up increasing the amount of non-academic content in a set.
I believe that a question's clues should be drawn from a single subject area.

How do you feel about 30-20-10 bonuses?

I like the variety of having an occasional such bonus, but don't overuse them.
I think such bonuses are weak, but they are also short which allows more tossups to be played and that makes up for the weakness.
I don't care.
In theory they're okay, but in practice it's too hard to choose clues that result in the same point distribution as normal (10-10-10) bonuses.
I just don't like such bonuses.

How do you feel about "one-fact" bonuses such as those that ask players to identify three novels from their main characters or three presidents from laws passed during their administrations?

So long as the bonus conversion is fair and they aren't overused, I have no problem with these questions particularly since they are fast to play and increase the number of questions heard.
I think such bonuses are weak, but they are also short which allows more tossups to be played and that makes up for the weakness.
I don't care.
I find such bonuses very uninteresting and would rather exclusively hear fewer questions with longer, more interesting clues.
I just don't like such bonuses.

How do you feel about questions that depend wholly or in part on some kind of wordplay to get the answer? For example, questions involving anagrams, clues with puns, etc.

The ability to use and manipulate language is a valuable part of cultural knowledge and deserves representation in quiz bowl. I would like to see lots of such questions!
The ability to use and manipulate language is a valuable part of cultural knowledge and deserves representation in quiz bowl; I'd like to see a couple of such questions in a set.
I don't care.
Wordplay is fundamentally not academic and should therefore not be in quiz bowl.
I just don't like such questions.

What was your evaluation of the overall difficulty of tossup clues at this year's ICT?

Excellent! They were well chosen and properly differentiated teams at all levels.
Satisfactory. Some tossups were really only gettable at the end and some were easy too fast, but, for the most part, they properly differentiated teams at all levels.
Poor. Far too many tossups could only be gotten after "For 10 points--" even by the best teams. Easier "middle" clues are needed. Not very many tossups were too easy.
Poor. Far too many tossups were obvious mid-way through, even to mediocre teams. Harder "middle" clues are needed. Not very many tossups were too hard.
Poor. Many tossups were too hard and many others were also too easy too fast.
I don't really remember.

How do you feel about tossups that players can "figure out" from implied characteristics of the answer even if they don't recognize specific facts given in the clues?

I love them! That type of thinking under pressure is enjoyable and challenging and there should be lots of such questions in quiz bowl.
I like them, but only in moderation. Quiz bowl should be mostly about knowing concrete facts, but other skills have a place.
I don't care.
I don't understand this particular survey question.
I don't like them. By their very nature, they require a degree of guesswork that I dislike.
I don't like them. Quiz bowl is about knowing specific, concrete facts.

How do you feel about "X, Y, both, or neither" bonuses? That is, a bonus that gives two potential properties of an object and the team must determine whether entities have the first property, the second property, both, or neither.

I particularly enjoy that bonus format and would like to see more of them.
I like bonuses to have a varied format and have no particular objection to this format itself.
I don't care.
I don't like such questions because they are often all-or-nothing in terms of scoring.
I don't like such questions because they make it too easy to get points by random guessing.
I just don't like such questions.

Do you think it would improve NAQT's question sets if every bonus was in the 10/10/10 format? That is, every bonus had exactly three parts, each of which was worth 10 points?

Yes, it would be a huge improvement.
Yes, it would be a small improvement.
I don't care.
No, it would make the questions somewhat worse.
No, it would make the questions much worse.

What would the ideal bonus conversions of various teams in the tournament be?

How important is it that NAQT have the same distribution at the ICT as was used at the SCT?

Very important. The national championship should be played on the same distribution as teams qualified on.
Somewhat important.
I don't care.
Not very important.
The distributions should be different to take into account the fact that ICT-caliber teams generally prefer a different distribution.

How important is it that NAQT have the same distribution in the Division I questions and the Division II questions used at the same event?

Very important. As teams progress from Division I to Division II they should continue to play on similar questions.
Somewhat important.
I don't care.
Not very important.
The distributions should be different to take into account the fact that Division I teams generally prefer a different distribution.

Which of the following, if any, would you consider to be major flaws in NAQT's current events questions about science? Please check all that apply.

Certain fields/types of events are over-represented.
Often impossible to get if one hasn't read a particular study.
Insufficient "background science" clues with non-recent material
Tossups are generally power-or-nothing, while bonuses are generally 0 or 30.
Generally poorly constructed.
Generally uninteresting.

If the ICT were extended by 30 minutes, would you consider the following to be excellent, good, indifferent, or poor uses of the extra time?

Click the submit button to send your answers to NAQT. We appreciate your having taken the time to let us know how you feel!

Category	Percent	Lots Fewer	Fewer	Same	More	Lots More
Current Events (non-science)	5.8%
Current Events (science)	0.5%
Fine Arts	7.8%
Foreign Language	0.2%
Geography	6.4%
General Knowledge / Mixed	5.6%
History	18.6%
Literature (non-myth, non-religious)	15.7%
Literature (religious)	1.0%
Literature (mythology)	1.9%
Popular Culture	7.1%
Philosophy	2.8%
Science	18.6%
Sports	3.5%
Social Science	4.4%

Category	Too hard	About right	Too easy
Current Events
Fine Arts
Foreign Language
Geography
General Knowledge / Mixed
History
Literature / Mythology
Popular Culture
Philosophy
Science
Sports
Social Science

Team	7.0	9.0	11.0	13.0	15.0	17.0	19.0	21.0	23.0	25.0
The winning team
The median team
The bottom team

Use	Excellent	Good	Indifferent	Poor
Playing another match
Adding time to each half to play more questions
Adding time to each half to play longer questions
Having a longer lunch