But he doesn't really have the same breadth of knowledge, does he? He's extremely good on art and literature and he's good at creative thinking, but it's pretty clear he knows very little about maths and science. But with Pope by his side, he's unstoppable.
Yang, Chaudri and Cosgrove do most of the science and maths lifting for Wolfson, too. Goldman has picked up some science so far (Stockholm+Copenhagen in this episode, Anthropocene+Stokes in the previous episode).
I think that saying he's good on "art and literature" is misleading. On politics, geography, logic, and philosophy he's great as well. He also has a gift for guessing. Also, for all we know he may know some of the science questions but Pope is just so blindingly fast and he defers to him.
Yeah, you are probably right. As was mentioned above he handled some impressive science related questions on his own very well. I still think Monkman as an individual is probably better on science and maths than Goldman, but maybe he isn't as bad as I'm imagining. Overall, the only category I've seen Balliol really tank at is biology, whereas Chaudri has that generally covered for Wolfson. I'm new to University Challenge, can anyone tell me if there is a balance in the questions as far as which subjects they cover? I was watching with a friend and they complained that there were too many arts questions so Goldman had the advantage :P
Goldman is on fire! A fairly predictable result here but Corpus have been a great team. Really looking forward to the next few matches. My money's on Balliol by a whisker.
Goldman is unusual in that his wide-reaching knowledge includes science and the arts. And once again, I could answer a number of the bonus questions for the winners but maybe only one of the losers's.
I mean is this balliol oxford team the best among several years of uc or what? Loveday's team was really mainly just loveday. This balliol team is a strong team all around. Although i think a biology medicine heavy round against a team with such specialty probably would have outed them along the way but that didn't happen to them, i mean it kinda happened in this episode but still no other team would have a bonus coversion enough to catch up with them...
not true - if you watch the whole season, and not just the final, Martinelli and Taylor consistently contributed a lot of starter questions and bonuses. Taylor's knowledge on US presidents was particularly impressive.
When they say "I'm reading" when describing their current studies, what level does that mean? I know DPhil is an Oxford PhD, but the other confuses me.
Where do these guys find the time to attain that breadth of knowledge? Genuine question open to all... Do they just read random novels? Read newspapers and articles - making notes? Do they go onto specific websites to find a broad range of information? What is the process here? Please don't be vague and write something like "They have amazing memories where they can see a fact once and remember it" - this is not the case I can assure you.
Watching all the old episodes, jotting the answers down on paper or excel spreadsheet then memorising them, going on Wiki, further studying on specialist areas
They are a given a series of topics on which they must read upon before each episode. I was told this by someone who previously appeared on this show representing St Andrews.
They will tend to go quiz society and compete against other teams both within the University and against other university teams around the country (which helps you both understand which areas you are best in and helps to widen your knowledge). You obviously also have to keep up with your specialist area. I competed (badly) against Goldman and Venkatesh within the Oxford quiz society a few years ago fwiw.
Not really - Paxman is an extremely overrated interviewer and pretty much has Michael Howard to thank for his entire career. I remember he interviewed Ann Coulter once, and was an absolute pussy.
dushmanrc Maybe so, but I'd like to see Trump compete on a trivia show like UC, or even be asked any sort of question where he's forced to answer directly and concretely. He'd squirm and stammer out a "tremendous" or two, to be sure.
Trump could knock the onion & sage stuffing out of Jeremy "Paxo" Paxman if he so wished. Trump has nothing to prove....he defeated all the establishment candidates the Republicans and the Democrats had to offer with mainstream media against him, and he turned to the baying crowds and roared *_"Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained?!? Is this not why you are here?"_* Maximus Donaldus Trumpus would take pity on Paxman and simply dismiss him as a mere purveyor of "fake news" leaving Paxman to grovel for just one opportunity to ask His Excellency a question like the CNN correspondent at the White House press conference, _"No, I won't give you a question. You're fake news. Don't be rude!"_
