I'm potentially treading on thin ice here. Any discussion of superiority of race or nationality in one area or another is a lightning rod for controversy and flaming. So I will do my best to be sensitive, yet forthright.
It is no secret that Indians are dominating spelling bees nowadays. At the national level, the past five winners have all been Indian. Since 1985, when Balu Natarajan became the first Indian winner of the NSB, there have been 12 winners, 10 of whom have won since 1999. And at this year's bee, the top three spellers were all Indian. It really does beg the question: why?
I've been searching the Hexco website today. Hexco is a company that specializes in providing support and "educational tools for the serious student." The company originally specialized in just the spelling bee (I used their products back in my bee days), but has grown to include geography bees, computer education, and a litany of other subjects. And I found out, for the first time, all about the North South Foundation, which sponsors multiple competitions, including their own spelling bees. I recently found out about the South Asian Spelling Bee, also. Both cater exclusively to Indians.
At this point, I've just begun to explore this area, but suffice it to say that both of these institutions are catered to prepare Indian students for academic excellence. And aside from spelling bees, it is no accident that Indians are known for excelling in math, science, medicine, and yes...to bring up a stereotype, information technology. But I think that some stereotypes exist for a reason, and it's no quirk that Indians are exceedingly common in the IT world.
Back to spelling bees: if Indians place such emphasis on academic excellence, it makes you wonder: why not other demographics? I have no answer at this time. But I bet it has a lot to do with discipline, hard work, setting goals...really, no magic elixir, I'm sure. But the foundation for excellence is also placed in there.
It's interesting to note that in the history of the spelling bee, only one person of predominantly non-Indian Asian descent has won: Wendy Guey, in 1995. Interesting, because non-Indian Asians are also known for academic excellence, particularly in the realms of math, science, and -- perhaps moreso than Indians -- music. Again, why not spelling?
Jamaica, also, has traditionally been extremely competitive at the national level; although there has only been one Jamaican winner (Jody-Anne Maxwell, in 1998), this doesn't negate the fact that Jamaicans often are among the top spellers year in and year out. But they have an extremely dedicated coach who puts them through rigorous training; I had the pleasure of meeting him at this year's bee.
Is there a Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, written by an Indian, waiting to be published somewhere? Have priorities shifted for Americans of Caucasian descent?
Hindi is an alphabetical language, whereas most oriental languages are ideograms. Spelling just isn't interesting at all for most east Asian parents, let alone a spelling contest. Math, science, and classical music, on the other hand, seem much more important.
ReplyDeleteMore about this year's bee though, do you think seeding in the semifinals based on preliminary scores would be a good idea? There was such a large range of scores and a big prize at stake (making it to primetime), that it made me wonder why they don't just take the top dozen or so scores, maybe 28-31, and just call it the finals. I'm guessing most semifinalists score around 23-25. Though very good, this is definitely NOT in the same league as a 28 or higher (especially with words like of "outrecuidance," "quelea," and "Thucydidean"), yet even students with borderline scores made it into round 6, sometimes just a letter or two off from the finals. By the same token, the contestant with the 31 got swept by the rather difficult Spanish pejerrey (have to connect rey=king, and you still have to make a leap of faith on the double rr). Perhaps the bee could make the semifinals 4-5 rounds, but "seed" higher scores later and later into the semis? Since there's not difference between getting out in round 4 or 6, but the only goal is to make it to primetime, a minority of higher and higher scores from preliminaries can earn byes for earlier rounds, and only have to begin spelling in round 5, 6, or even 7 by virtue of their stellar performance on the written test. This would make luck less of a factor in the semis and favor getting the very top spellers into the finals, though everyone, whether they start spelling in round 4 or later, would still have to spell a tough word in round 7 or 8 word to seal the deal. Furthermore, if a speller did just barely manage to make it to the semifinals but proved his or her mettle by surviving through all 4 or 5 semifinal rounds, no one can object to whether or not they really deserve it. On the flip side, people might gripe that someone getting a 30 or 31 would only have to spell one or two words right to make it to the finals, but the answer would be that they still had to spell a hard round 7 or 8 word on stage, and the preliminary score would speak for itself on the speller's skill. What do you think? It really makes a lot of sense if you visualize it on an excel spreadsheet, I can send it to you if you want.
Great insight on Hindi vs. other Asian languages...thank you! It does make sense.
ReplyDeleteAs far as just doing finals instead of semifinals as well, I really doubt anyone would be happy with the arrangement. Personally, I think it's already a very cruel and brutish cut from well over 250 spellers to no more than 50. Many spellers deserving of airtime would miss out on that experience and prestige.
As far as seeding goes, I think the issue of fairness would rear its head, although what you propose might minimize luck's role in the bee. You could argue, too, that some spellers might get some written words right by...well, sheer luck. And if suddenly some spellers were to randomly appear in later rounds (from the POV of the viewer, at least), Scripps would have to state the spellers' written test scores, and I don't know if they're open to that. Beyond that, spellers who are experienced enough to make it to the semifinals by and large enjoy being on stage and in the spotlight. Imagine Kavya in this situation. She enters the competition later, gets "pejerrey" as her first word, and is eliminated. That would be too cruel, I think.
Incidentally, the written test cutoff has ranged widely from year to year. Last year, the cutoff was 29 (i.e., a score of 28 would not qualify you for the semifinals). Miss a single oral round word, even with a perfect score on the written test, and you'd be out. This year, it was 23, due to a more difficult written test; with a perfect score on the written test, one could miss both oral round words and still easily make it into the semifinals.
I think your intention is really well-founded, and evidently well-researched, too! I just don't see it being practicable. But who knows? Scripps has a history of being willing to experiment and try different scenarios to make the bee as fair and run as smoothly as possible. I'd imagine the concept of seeding might be entertained, if it hasn't been already.
About the written test, why are there 25 non-scored words? I speculate that the main reason is for research and development - getting a lot of data about what percent of spellers get which words correct, which is perhaps as empirical a measure as possible for word difficulty. The bee can also see which misspellings are most common and get a real sense of why certain kinds of words are tricky, all from the speller's point of view. Then, they can use these private, non-score words a couple years later at different levels of competition, with extra confidence about their difficulty. But the more important question is, what kind of words are the non-score ones anyways? Are they just easy ones most people get right, to boost confidence, or tough ones that can actually be used for research purposes?
ReplyDeleteGreat question! I've wondered that myself. I like your train of thought. I've thought all along that it provided a double-layer of security (i.e., it's forbidden to divulge words on the written test until after everyone's taken it, but even if you do, there's no guarantee that the words you "spill" will count). But research makes sense, too. From what my speller said this year, it seems like the non-scored words were on par with the scored words...all varying levels of difficulty.
ReplyDelete