The Lemmings welcomed the Cock-A-2 on a damp, cold night the pain of which was eased with a roaring fire and an excellent selection of ales including a winter porter.
Although there was competition in the form of a ladies’ darts match unusually it did not cause much of a disturbance – it was teams from two other pubs in a knockout competition playing a “neutral board” although whatever advantage that gives escapes me.
The questions were quite difficult (evidenced by the comparatively low scores against other 
At the end of the Specialist rounds the Lemmings were trailing with 51 to the visitors’ 58 and although the scores were low there were only five questions unanswered. The Cock-A2 continued with a strong showing into the General Knowledge which they won with 86 to 79 – final score 144 to 130 – well done!!
Individual scores were Bob 15/6, Matt 3/15, Nick 6/15 and Tomo 9/15; conferred points were 8/9 with 10/9 pass-overs whilst the victors collected 11/6 pass-overs.
A couple of personal observations not necessarily shared by the rest of the team – too often timing is too casual and can be used to advantage, and as a great believer in conferring I’d like to point out that if only half of the visitors’ pass-overs had been conferred successfully by the Lemmings they would have won with 138 to 136 – ah well!!
7 comments:
A lengthy comment - in the form of therapy - not designed to offend, but in gentle humour - my conclusion was that these were bad questions for me rather than bad questions. In reference to Nick's comments, the lyrics to Miss Otis regrets support the Cock A2s suggestion that she was lynched rather than executed judicially (unless willow trees were an approved substitute for gallows)and I chucked 6 over that could have been conferred for one.
Anyway, it was a night of private hell and here's my account.
In a spirit of solidarity with fellow educators, here goes a little story from MQL Academy.
Young Rogers entered the classroom with great optimism, still clutching proudly the gold star he had achieved in Mr. Davies’ lesson. Mr. Davies (not to be confused with Mr. Davis, formerly of the same department) was one of those younger, trendy teachers that allowed you to read modern novels and play football every week in PE. The previous lesson had also been great fun, Mrs. Horrocks had set the work, but leaving Bogie and Jeater in charge was probably an error as these were the kind of prefects that would sneak the fourth-form a sly cigarette and encourage all sorts of rude and rebellious banter.
Today, however, would be different. Although the patient Mr. Shaw was in charge of the examination (he was a good-humoured sort, sometimes willing to let the class chat a little too much for Thompson, who always likes to get the work done quickly so that the lesson can finish a little early to allow first dibs at the tuck shop), Rogers knew that the exam had been written largely by Mr. McBride. This teacher was known of largely by reputation (although, conscientious sort that he is, had tried a couple of past papers) as a History teacher of very exacting standards. He had been around since the grammar-school era and had resisted any attempts to modernise the curriculum, he was not one of those that considered “Thatcherism” or the “Cold War” to be history in any way, shape or form. In addition, whilst some of the newer staff allowed General Studies lessons to deteriorate into a discussion of pop music and soap opera, his idea of civilisation and culture was largely BC(E).
Part 2
The exam passed in a confused daze for Rogers and he occasionally shouted out silly answers, to the point where double maths with Mr. Browne seemed a preferable alternative. Indeed, by the time he was asked about an archaic punishment device (was this a metaphor for the whole exam, he wondered?), his mind was so befuddled that he answered “pillion” – clearly he had been enjoying his literature too much, although he wasn’t fit to make it onto the motorbike as one of The History Boys. Even Mr Shaw had lost patience by this point and the dunce cap was duly administered. Thompson started with enthusiasm, but after turning onto the second page did he realise that it wasn’t a Physics paper, after that he could only be roused a passing reference to Jenny Agutter (had Bogie or Jeater slipped him a contraband copy of Equus?). Langstaff was subdued, unsurprisingly, given that he was on report for acting the clown a little too often recently. Only Peck, who often spent lessons dozing, seemed to be on form. Despite his protestations about being a member of the International Brotherhood of Proletarians, we all knew that Peck had transferred after expulsion from a public school and Mr. McBride’s test seemed more in tune to what he was used to. The boys on the opposite desk earnestly got on with answering the paper very well, helped by the unusually quiet girls’ games lesson nearby. Rogers wondered if the boy in the 4th seat had been given the foundation paper by accident, but was otherwise impressed and wondered why they weren’t nearer the top of the middle stream.
As he sat morosely in after-school detention one of the bottom set boys entered the classroom with his paper. Although he and his friends had scored well, he had given Mr. McBride the lowest possible mark on “RatemyTeacher”. Rogers was confused – he knew it had been a tough exam, but felt that he had flunked it and the paper had been largely fair. Then he remembered that Mr. McBride (who, whilst lacking the lacerating style that Mr. Levitt used to display) had recently written the boy a report along the lines of “must try much harder”). For the first time that day, it all began to make sense. When Rogers realised that his next lesson was Science with Mr. Kennelly (whose class he had asked to leave last year) his anxiety deepened further.
Master Rogers scored high marks in the creative writing class, but unfortunately did not carry this into the exam
In the real world, the Academicals (or three quarters of them) scored reasonably highly; our youth correspondent suffered. Obviously a lot of work had gone into the questions.
The one contentious question concerned franglais. Wikipedia states:
Miles Beresford Kington (13 May 1941 – 30 January 2008) was a British journalist, musician (a double bass player for Instant Sunshine and other groups) and broadcaster. He is also credited with the invention of Franglais, a fictional language, made up of French and English.
But other, possibly more reliable sources put the origin as being French as per the given answer
There was some incredulity at the wren being the king of birds, but google gives the story of how it happened
Thanks to setter(s),vetters and QM Neil
Petermcb said
Master Rogers is quite perceptive about Mr. McBride's attitude to History; if he can remember it, it ain't History! However, the two examples he gives left him a little perplexed. He didn't realise that Thatcherism was a thing of the past; since 1979 we seem to have been living in an unbroken Narnia like Thatcherite winter, relieved only by the antics of the likes of Cecil Parkinson and David Mellor (Whose questions, incidentally, were classified as Politics, not History, though some might have filed them under Entertainment). And as American tanks move into Poland and the Baltic states it's difficult to believe that the Cold War is over.
With regard to Miss Otis regrets, the Cock-a-2's interpretation was quite correct. If anybody has enjoyed listening to this for years as simply a rather pleasant song, then they may have been enjoying Cole Porter's elegant music, but have clearly not been listening to the words.
I was intrigued by the story of the bottom set boys who gave the set of Qs bottom marks. If they were the ones I think they were, I notice that only once this season have they scored higher marks. I don't subscribe to the view that we should judge Qs on the basis of how well we did, but that response is rather surprising. Perhaps it's an example of a dish best served cold.
Good luck for the rest of the season, Master Rogers.
Thanks Peter.
I referenced Thatcherism and the Cold War because, as you may be aware, they have started cropping up on GCSE/A Level Specifications - much to my chagrin as one who likes to think that I am not one able to provide my students with a first-hand account of history (though old enough to have accessed Miss Otis Regrets by the wonderful Kirsty MacColl. The Cold War is a little different these days, given Mr Trump's cosying up.
Enjoyed the respite of a Ninja Turtle question last night!
Am equally frustrated and bemused by the "bottom-set boys". I would argue that such marking should be discounted - in anticipation of 0 (at best) for our questions next month.
I am repeating this in the week when the incident occurred:
Sir,
I write on an oft-visited subject, the latest manifestation of which arose in a question concerning “What is a Berliner”? Whilst, according to the people involved the matter was resolved amicably it raises once again the subject of what should happen if an answer is disputed. I refer in particular to i-phone warriors googling furiously after the question has passed. Contestants nod sagely if Wikipedia, (that foolproof font of all knowledge) pronounces one way or the other. The trouble was that if the team relying on a cobbled together anyone-can-do-it encyclopaedia would have dug down enough he or she would have found that both the disputed “wrong answer” and the so-called “right answer” would have both prevailed! I believe that this system has received the blessing of the annual general meeting!
And what of the poor question-master? It is all very well to say that the matter was resolved amicably but try telling that one when the teams are neck and neck and promotion or relegation beckons.. What if there is no wi-fi in the pub? What if nobody on the other team has a phone to counter? And, heaven forbid, is the final say going to rest with Wikipedia?
The question master should remain the final arbiter. If both teams agree that a question is bad then it should be thrown out – that is one of the reasons that supplementary questions are provided. If there is any disagreement whatsoever then there is an answer – it is written on the question paper!
That way if the question is wrong teams have a right of appeal and both the flack and the blame rests exactly where it should rest – with setters and vetters.
Concerned
Tunbridge Wells
"Concerned" concludes with a point that I would endorse - in a qualified sense. Like most other members of the league, I set, vet and QM; like most other members I participate - and I would not wish to stake money on my knowledge of the answer to most of the questions I receive; like all others I do not pull on a cape of omniscience when I turn to these other roles. As such, things will get through me as a vetter (and may well get through several others - we cannot feasibly devote time to check every sub-"fact" of every question) and I would prefer not to be the sole arbiter of judgment in an eventual controversy.
The league is a broad church - we have very competitive quizzers, we have those that are out for a sociable evening - neither is in the wrong. The former group are likely to care if a disputed answer threatens to determine a result, or even a personal score.
Wikipedia, though flawed, is a far more trustworthy source of knowledge on a range of topics than my brain is. Those that put nonsense on it are often likely to run into a more informed individual who corrects said nonsense quickly. I am confident that it already plays a significant part in the setting process.
As such, as cricket learned, technology can trump (a verb I can just about persist with) has the potential to correct human error. Getting to a correct when possible is preferable to a sup - which may be much more/less answerable by the individual or general respondent.
I don't think that the way forward is for teams to start searching for correct answers and waving them at the QM (akin to a disgruntled bowler banging on the 3rd umpire's door), but for there to be a right to review a question after it has been played through as per the answer on the sheet - which the QM can then do at their leisure (borrowing a phone if need be) - adding and removing points as necessary. As a QM I would prefer to do so alone at a beer break (obviously not so easy near the end of the quiz) rather than with a baying audience. Many (but not all) problem questions (including the Berliner) could be definitively ruled on in this way.
I would dismiss the "no Wi-Fi in Rainow etc." argument - not all football matches have the facility of goal-line technology, neutral Assistant Referees, or indeed visible lines - they make do, without this being a sound claim against others making use of what is available.
Post a Comment