Venue: Army Institute of Technology, Pune
Set and conducted by: Meghashyam Shirodkar
Quiz Final Results
Format: 35 qns in the prelims; 45 questions (IR) + Cluenatic round
1st: Anand Sivashankar + Anannya Deb (F) - 90* (tiebreak: 2)
2nd: Suraj Menon + Yash Marathe (B) - 90 (tiebreak: 1.5)
3rd: Niranjan Pedanekar + J. Ramanand (C) - 78
4th: Vikram Joshi + Srinath (E) - 72
5th: Sumant Srivathsan + Vibhendu Tewari (A) - 67.5
6th: Sachin Ravi + George Mathew (D) - 35
The "General B.C.Joshi" quiz is back. The quiz from AIT that had set high standards of organisation in the 'days of yore' began in 1998, stumbled a little in the early years of the last decade, and then ran out of steam after 2005. So, for those of us with fond memories of AIT's quizzing history, it was great to see the quiz being 'rebooted' (as the QM mentioned more than once).
For the record, with all the pedantry befitting a quiz, the B.C.Joshi quiz began in 1998, and not in 2000 as numerous speakers mentioned yesterday. I'd written about the BCJ quiz a long while ago - the post is here. Incidentally, it was fitting that Anand, part of the BVP team to have won the inaugural edition, was again the winner, in a close quiz and tight tie-break finish.
Here's brief, bulleted summary of facts and opinions:
* The time management was poor, with the quiz (esp. finals) beginning very late. This also meant we had to lose a round at the end; given the placings, it could have made a lot of difference to the top 5 positions. To their credit, the organisers did solicit feedback on this issue and have promised for better things last year.
* The entry fee, at 200/- for corporate teams at least, was very steep. Outside of the Brand Equity Quiz, this must be the most that I've paid to enter a quiz prelims! IMO, the entry fee only adds to another barrier to attending this quiz; the distance to the venue, and thus relative lack of transportation being the main problems.
* I did not like the prelims very much. Yes they were tough, but that's not the complaint. There were quite a few questions that were on very unattractive topics; even if the aim is to appeal to populist subjects, there are many topics that are both interesting and mainstream. In addition, the rolling visuals, the commentary in the middle, etc. was very distracting. It would have been better if the visuals had been bunched together in the prelims paper. I thoroughly disagree with the scheme of having more than 1 pt per question! Three points for simply identifying the people behind Intel was unfair, esp. if someone got just one point for much better answers. (I'll confess: perhaps the only reason my team qualified was because we managed to pick up some of these 2 or 3 pointers)
* The finals were a lot better in comparison. But there was a clear current affairs (2009-2011) bias. Multiple questions on topics such as the census, FaceBook etc. could have been avoided.
* Too many questions had too many partial points at stake; perhaps the questions could have been smaller/tighter, which would have avoided the problem. The addition of 3 qns in the end made a difference to the top 5 standings. Perhaps the QM could have just stopped at the end of the 2nd last round, having come to the end of the allotted time.
* Some of the questions in the finals were quite good. The teams on-stage were well-matched, and there were some fine answers. Almost everyone was in the hunt for most of the quiz, which made for good viewing.
* Thanks to the organisers for the bus transport, the fine food, and their hospitality.
AIT has promised to ensure future editions of the quiz continue to happen, so until next year.
Got something to say? Write it in the 'comments' section here.