Coaches and Player Survey Results

[eckj]

Early in the fall a survey was sent out to players and coaches via email and social media to collect information on Ohio Quiz Bowl.

Here are the results: http://bit.ly/OACsy20

[tomoore]

I think it is good to have this survey, although really this should probably be divided next time around into geographies that more-closely correspond to common Ohio geographic parlance (let alone just general geography, as a representation of population density and related distributions) instead of the typically fluid "regional" identifiers used by OAC that are an otherwise non-standard way of divvying up the state. It is unclear, for example, whether 'x' submissions from the "Southeast region" are from schools in the Jackson/Portsmouth/Ironton triangle or if they're from Dublin and southern Delaware County (whose schools compete in the Southeast region.) Perhaps a better way to do this next time would be to blot up a state-map outline with the 88 counties and have, like, up-to-12 geographic identifiers highlighting sections of those counties divided for respondents to choose from (e.g. Cleveland/Greater Cleveland, Akron-Canton, Steel Valley (Youngstown-Warren metro), Eastern Ohio/(Mid-)Ohio Valley, Columbus metro, north Central Ohio, south Central/Southeastern Ohio, Lucas County and Toledo adjacencies, rural Northwest Ohio, Dayton metro, Cincinnati metro, west Central Ohio.)

I don't necessarily understand how the questions akin to "I played an OAC tournament because..." and the responses from players on said questions are helpful or useful, only because unquestionably a high percentage of players statewide have no real say or influence in their team's schedule creation -- in a similar vein, there are probably very few players inside-or-outside that group of "helpless in schedule input" that are picky about the format they play (so as long as the questions aren't crap.) "I would play an OAC tournament (regionals or a Saturday invitational) if I was able to attend one", however, is a pretty solid question because it measures enthusiasm and carries a distinguishable aim.

What is the question on slide 10? What is the question on slide 12? They appear to be the same exact question, but two different responses.

There's 21 coach submissions from the Southeast but only 6-7 player submissions from that region, despite the fact overall there were 28% more player submissions statewide than coaches? Okay. Good to see the apparent coach enthusiasm in making submissions known, apparently, in that region. But, alas, have no real idea if they're in the suburbs of Columbus or the area more traditionally defined as "Southeast Ohio" , if indeed the goal is to put attention toward a particular area in resolving inadequacies. Something to think about for next year!

"It is important that schools in rural and urban areas have access to quizbowl as well as support from the wider community. Outreach and support to communities historically underrepresented in Ohio quizbowl is critical to creating a better and more equitable competition and community.

Of course. The problem is there's not enough individuals statewide, with-or-without an OAC committee contributing a hand (or not), to plant the seeds of new circuits and feed them water*sunlight necessary to have them thrive-and-survive beyond one event or 1-2 years. This really less an 'OAC issue' and more of a "so few people outside of OAC have the necessary combination of interest*energy*resources*availability to expand the game." The college clubs have no interest in this, let alone the universities or LAC's in general; getting people who have no coaching affiliation (e.g. quizbowl alumni age 19-35 -- an age demographic that is riddled with debt and other stressors) to lend a hand, their time and their presence to a cause (quizbowl) that has NEVER made the point in practice to compensate readers/staffers for their time (partly because there is virtually NO CASH FLOW at tournaments) is like pulling teeth (not for me, though -- partly because folks like me, the fact I take care of them as my readers and have always busted my ass in making sure the tournament they were a part of was one they could be proud to be reading at -- primarily because I'm based in Columbus and have the networking.) By all means, this is a topic that should be discussed and brainstormed further.

...It is impossible, in the alternating question rounds, to write question rounds that are of equal difficulty for each team. I have often heard questions that are misrepresented (e.g. earth science in a physical science category, state government in federal government etc.)

A. "It is impossible, in the alternating question rounds, to write question rounds that are of equal levels of difficulty for each team." No, it isn't. Bad writers might make imbalanced questions, but that's not a fault of the format. The "Philip Roth novels" argument was bad in 2010, and it's still bad today.

B. "misrepresented (e.g. earth science in a physical science category)" Respondent should show their work that earth science isn't appropriately categorized as physical science.

C. "state government in federal government" -- There is no "Federal Government" category.

vague, context-less anonymous complaints about committee representation of unnamed regions

...will always continue to be vague, context-less anonymous complaints about committee representation of unnamed regions that are aimless, unhelpful and uncalled for -- ultimately leading to nothing productive and insightful.

[tomoore]

What I'm trying to say is that I want the quiz bowl community to be more inclusive to students from all over the state, and to re-evaluate the knowledge that we value as important. We largely appreciate white European culture, and talk about African-American culture largely in the lens of slavery, except sometimes there is a Toni Morrison question because she comes from Ohio. Let's make quiz bowl about learning new things, instead of memorizing facts about the dominant American culture.

This is a very intriguing comment, one worth engaging in. Although it really isn't a specific OAC issue, let alone something the OAC can probably do much about, the respondent does bring up an interesting point.

The overarching principle of quizbowl, behind why the game is played, is to "reward knowledge" and the content asked about is a direct indictment of what is promoted as being worth having knowledge on. I think there is something to be said on the (admittedly massive)blind-spot, sociologically, our community has when it comes to what is asked about and how that blind-spot inadvertently reinforces much of the dominant culture (a product of majority group producing the culture, and then dictating that said production is the most valuable to be discussed and learn... see: Bloom's Western Canon and the lack of non-white authors) as one valued-above.

Although I disagree with the supporting argument to this complaint (not the Morrison one -- I'll get to that in a second -- but the one written on the slide before) for several reasons, it is indeed worth discussing the value*importance of representation in our questions: it serves as a better example for our students, and with a present-day student population that is invariably more interested in learning about the contributions to be had from representational diversity (likely because it helps impart the common, now normal value of consciousness) it is only right that more of an effort be made to show that our activity acknowledges the value of said content.

There are questions on this matter to be had...

a) to what extent of the change in question-canonization must there be;

b) are there, indeed, questions that should be considered "off-limits" (this may be extreme, admittedly);

c) in the context of history, American and world, what is the scope of the already-extant canon that doesn't ask about atrocity, oppression, anything-and-everything else that is 'The Sins of Powerful People(s) Past';

d) are there figures where their relevance and significance to the overall footprint of the academic/cultural, enough of such that it would be reasonable for a high-schooler to know about them, exceeds that of their sins (maybe not so much "stan[ning] Henry Clay", but John C. Calhoun? Calhoun was not a good guy.)

e1) is there a way to discuss the cultural significance and contributions made by black Americans in the arts and literature, in a context that completely (or somewhat) separates their contribution from the entire root of generations-long discrimination/racism/denial of opportunities/disenfranchisement/the lack of rights that has gone on for centuries: the institution of slavery, the era of Jim Crow, and the general fact prejudice*systemic racism has pervaded our country and its institutions from the very beginning? I completely get that slavery -- the very image of it, the very mention of it -- is certainly an uncomfortable, traumatizing topic that is best-not-suited as being a "For 10 Points, Name this Slavery Thing" (because the seriousness of the topic and the impact of the event should be enough to suggest it shouldn't be reduced to being discussed glibly, without consideration of the impact and seriousness) but does that mean we should put Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey out of the arena to be asked... when all along the idea behind asking them was (supposedly) to revere them, not unlike why schools talk about John Brown?

e2) Is there indeed enough replaceable content that can be answered by high-schoolers regarding this topic? I'm all in favor of ditching Roots if there is more to be valued representationally and socially by asking about The Fire Next Time instead (or if Roots is fine, still can't go wrong with more Baldwin in the canon anyways.) I'm fine with re-evaluating whether we really need to ask about some of the works of Faulkner and O'Connor that portray black people in rather unflattering caricatures (regardless of context, era and setting -- they're still not fine.) Perhaps take a look at instead promoting more of Stockett's The Help. But history? I'd like to see there be enough in the replacement transition of increasing black achievement in American history to where it isn't just a sum of half-assed tossups on Shirley Chisholm, John Lewis, Tom Bradley or (worse) the trivialized sensation of black Americans having their legacies reduced to a binary "person did this" a la middle school Black History Month.

f) I don't really agree a whole lot on the art comment, for a few reasons, but I get the general point that respondent is making and agree.


**The Morrison question -- I suspect the respondent heard the cited question at a local match. That one kind of is a pitfall of bad-writing, and honestly it's possible I may have written that question as part of a Morrison/Thurber/Grey "Ohio authors" themed American Lit category. It is also true in many low-level question supplies, Morrison being cited as being from Lorain occurs at a weirdly high and (in retrospect) inappropriate frequency that undermines her contributions.

[ThePocketProtector]

Tom,

I agree. Including schools as geographically and culturally dissimilar as Ironton and Dublin in the same grouping seems arbitrary and weird. I'm glad we could come together on this.

Oh, you were just talking about the survey... oops! Nevermind.

[ThePocketProtector]

The lack of player input was definitely nefarious. OR, speaking for the players in my sphere of influence, it is more likely they felt unqualified to express an opinion, because an open invitational in OAC format hasn't happened in our area in years and they only know one format.

As you said, I can't speak for Dublin, though.

[eckj]

Tom,

I fixed the question on slide 10/12. When copy and pasting slides I just forgot to change the title.