MovieChat Forums > Spellbound (2003) Discussion > Does The Best Speller Win?

Does The Best Speller Win?


After watching this movie, and really enjoying it, I have to say that the kids are right about the luck element. It seemed like any of the top five kids might have won had the word order been different. I take nothing away from the winner Nuper. She was a great speller, but the other top five kids were equally great and so the contest may not have found THE top speller.

I wonder if there would be some way to get to a final 5 or final 10 kids and then do something different. For example you could have the top five all have to spell the same five words in writing. Then the top two would do a head to head match play on five more words and if necessary go into sudden death. The kids work so hard to prepare, they deserve a contest where luck isn't so much of a factor.

Anyone else agree that there is a little too much luck in winning the Bee? There MUST be a better idea than mine too!


reply

I think you're right. There's no way it could be claimed that the National Spelling Bee winner is the best speller among all the kids in the finals, or, for that matter, in the country. It produces a winner, which is what folks like to see in a contest. And the winner it produces wouldn't necessarily win if a second bee were held a week later with the same participants. And you're right, luck is a critical element. As I remember, even Nupur indicated she was glad she wasn't called upon to spell some of the words that eliminated other spellers. Your idea of a written test for the finalists would certainly help even the playing field, and I've seen some academic contests that did combine the two formats. It would seem to make the contest more fair. Another possibility would be to have every contestant in a soundproof isolation booth and all the contestants would have to spell the same words. This would also add to the cost of the event, which would be prohibitive on local levels.

I'm not too concerned about the very final finals. In the long run, the sudden-death system might be as good or bad as any. My biggest concern about the system is the one-mistake-and-you're-out business from day one. To be a winner a kid has to have made no error, no slip of the tongue - at all - in all the meets and rounds leading up to the final winner (survivor). The payoff for most kids who, after months and months of heavy study, hit the unlucky word in an early round is frustrated disappointment. It's not unlikely that the best speller in the country might actually have gone out on an unlucky word in an earlier, un-televised preliminary - perhaps in their school or even classroom bee. I think Nupur also said that her school bee was the most nerve-wracking of all.

Round robin meets leading up to the final day where the finalists are the ones with the most correctly spelled words might work. Sort of like professional sports with their regular season and playoffs. They'd retain some of the suspense element that makes the present systems so exciting. Still, The National Spelling Bee is an institution now, and it's unlikely it'll change any time soon. And maybe it shouldn't. Why tamper with what seems to work? Programs like this, which put the national spotlight on academic effort, are rare.

In any case, the movie was great. It showed that the kids involved were real people, good, hard-working students in an era when kids seem constantly getting bad raps.

Gordon


I'm Nobody! Who are you?

reply