0 2 . 1 3 . 1 4
02.13.14
02.13.14
The Indy is dreading another February 14th. Cover Design by ANNA PAPP
VOL. XLV, NO. 15
CONTENTS FORUM 4 It's All Greek to Me NEWS 5-6 Crimson Craniums ARTS 7 Got Gold 8 Acting Up 9 Comic Relief SPORTS 10-11 I'll Take Harvard Students for 200
President Albert Murzakhanov '16 Editor-in-Chief Sean Frazzette '16 Director of Production Anna Papp '16 News Editor Forum Editor Arts Editor Sports Editor Associate Forum Editor Associate Arts Editor Associate Design Editor
Milly Wang '16 Caroline Gentile '17 Sarah Rosenthal '15 Shaquilla Harrigan '16 Aditya Agrawal '17 Joanna Schacter Travis Hallett '14
Cartoonist John McCallum '16 Illustrator Eloise Lynton '17 Business Managers Frank Tambero '16 Manik Bhatia '16 Columnists Aditya Agrawal '17 Michael Feehly '14 Jackie Leong '16 Andrew Lin '17 Madi Taylor '16 Shreya Vardhan '17 Senior Staff Writers Christine Wolfe '14 Angela Song '14 Sayantan Deb '14 Michael Altman '14 Meghan Brooks '14 Whitney Lee '14
As Harvard College's weekly undergraduate newsmagazine, the Harvard Independent provides in-depth, critical coverage of issues and events of interest to the Harvard College community. The Independent has no political affiliation, instead offering diverse commentary on news, arts, sports, and student life. For publication information and general inquiries, contact President Albert Murzakhanov (president@harvardindependent. com). Letters to the Editor and comments regarding the content of the publication should be addressed to Editor-in-Chief Sean Frazzette (editorinchief@harvardindependent.com). For email subscriptions please email president@ harvardindependent.com. The Harvard Independent is published weekly during the academic year, except during vacations, by The Harvard Independent, Inc., Student Organization Center at Hilles, Box 201, 59 Shepard Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. Copyright Š 2014 by The Harvard Independent. All rights reserved.
Staff Writers Manik Bhatia '16 Xanni Brown '14 Terilyn Chen '16 Lauren Covalucci '14 Clare Duncan '14 Gary Gerbrandt '14 Travis Hallett '14 Yuqi Hou '15 Cindy Hsu '14 Theodora Kay '14 Chloe Li '16 Dominique Luongo '17 Orlea Miller '16 Albert Murzhakanov '16 Carlos Schmidt '15 Frank Tamberino '16
Forum
indy
This issue is dedicated in loving memory to Angela Mathew.
The Harvard Independent • 02.13.14
harvardindependent.com
3
Forum
For Those About to Rush (We Salute You) #whyimnotanchored in 800 words. By LAUREN COVALUCCI
I
love rush week. I have three roommates, and every night, all at once, we would scramble to the mirror to fix our makeup (at our double sink — thanks, Pfoho!) and chat about prospective sisters. Then they left and I had the room to myself for a couple hours, which was also pretty great. I’ve never rushed, I’m not affiliated, but I do occasionally pose with those stupid sorority hand gestures because I’m a rebel and want to stick it to the man. On Harvard’s campus, Greek life tends to be one of those things where you get it or you don’t, where you love it or find it nauseating. I’ve managed to play a sort of middle ground, meeting a sizable chunk of my friends directly through a sorority I’m not in. Over the three-and-a-half years worth of rushes I’ve witnessed from behind the scenes, the later ones have been a lot more fun. When my friends first started joining the blue and pink and blue and more blue and black and gold ranks, it mostly just seemed stupid, probably because they found out how much dues were shortly after they got in — I didn’t see the point in paying for friends who would sing things at me and ‘like’ all of my profile pictures. (Note: I’m obviously talking about the frats.) It got better when I realized that the girls didn’t suck. I got to know everyone as they were settling into the groups and figuring out where they fit into the social scheme of things. For the majority, if you’ve gotten into the right sorority and are joining for the right reasons, fitting in is similar to fitting into a swimming pool. I wouldn’t call it a difficult maneuver. They really just want to love everybody and bake cookies together. I did consider rushing when Alpha Phi came to campus, but I think I was overly bothered by their mispronunciation of “phi” and the enormous chunk of time rushing rips out of your life. (They call it ‘alphafee’ because apparently ‘fee’ sounds more feminine than ‘fie’. Come, now.) I liked that the founding members would have the opportunity to set the tone of the group and build a supportive, generous community. Alternately, I could rush the sorority that some of my best friends were in. I had plenty of chances to rush. And I’m glad I didn’t. I will warn you that not rushing isn’t for everyone. Some just can’t live without paying dues, having a calendar full of social commitments, and participating in dress-coded, color-coordinating rituals. Obviously I kid, but Greek life — despite being great in general — can wind up not being a great place for a lot of people. I could never bring myself to love the extra layer of social exclusivity on top of an already extraordinarily exclusive community, even considering how much it benefits the girls who do make it into the tight-knit group. I don’t like that there’s not a lot of help available for people who want to join and can’t afford dues. I wonder how much impact Greek life has on people who don’t feel comfortable in a gender-binary system, especially when they go to schools where being Greek is the only gateway to a vibrant social life. I worry about the lack of racial diversity in the groups. I also don’t like singing. These are all issues that can be fixed — for instance, I would be the first in line to rush
4
harvardindependent.com
a sorority that picked up Journey and AC/DC sing-alongs instead of cutesy anthems. (If one of those does exist: Guys, call me. Let’s talk.) A thousand people have written a thousand essays about what’s wrong with the Greek system and lots of that is true. I’m looking forward to seeing how, or if, the groups adapt themselves to criticism. They’ll have a future as long as college kids want a place to feel included, so I hope they rise to the occasion. I wish I were thoughtful enough person to forego rush for one of those valid ideological reasons. In actuality I just had no desire to spend a lot of time girl-flirting. Latching onto a mixed-gender community with a wider range of interests was a much better move for me. All communities self-select to some extent, but these ones are more aggressive about it than most. The sidelines have been good to me, though. I’m lucky I got to participate without being in the in-group itself and I’ve obviously benefitted second-hand from all friendships that got passed along to me like the best kind of hand-me-downs. (Hi, friends! They’re probably mad at me. Whoops.) Lauren Covalucci ’14 (lcovalucci@college) is confused on how someone can be ‘amma’ — that’s not a word.
02.13.14 • The Harvard Independent
Forum
indy
Big Minds, Big Thoughts Har vard Thinks Big inspires once again. By MILLY WANG
E
ach year, the Harvard College Events Board organizes an evening event where six faculty members are invited to share their ideas and research with the Harvard undergraduate community in only ten short minutes. This annual event occurred on Wednesday February 5th – a night of heavy snowfall, which could have explained the fewer than usual members in attendance. But despite the slightly sparser numbers in attendance, this year’s Harvard Thinks Big event was just as action-packed and inspiring as the years past. With a lineup of professors and lecturers ranging from the sciences and economics departments to the African American studies and Graduate schools, undergraduate students were treated to various insightful topics and ideas that spanned numerous disciplines. Rob Lue, Professor of the Practice of Molecular and Cellular biology, began the evening by introducing his work as the faculty director of HarvardX, Harvard’s online education initiative. With the current rise of online institutions and the opportunity for students to learn sitting right at home, he posed the intriguing question: “What does it mean for brick and mortar institutions like Harvard?” There are many instances in the past where new developments and inventions have by and large supplanted the old. Emails have greatly reduced the use of snail mail, and cars and airplanes have crowded out the once booming railroad industry. The Internet and expansion of online learning, he stated, allows us to engage the world more closely than ever before. “This is a moment of inflection and ultimately, a moment of transformation,” he said. “We are in a moment of evolution.” In this much more connected world, he argued that the flow of knowledge has become a bidirectional cycle, which provides the opportunity for institutions to connect with the world all around us. Therefore, the expansion of online institutions does not necessarily mean a complete replacement of brick and mortar institutions in the future, and may instead, provide various benefits. Jeff Lichtman, Jeremy R. Knowles Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology, followed that presentation with a look into the human brain. Lichtman began his talk by declaring, with some humor, “I am somewhat of a savant when it comes to brain wires.” He has
an M.D. and Ph.D. from Washington University and is a member of the Center for Brain Science. To preface his ideas, he first showed the undergraduate audience images of neurons, one displayed using a technique “Rainbow” where each neuron is shown in a different color, and another using serial electron microscopy, where every synapse and packets of neurotransmitters can be seen. The focus of his presentation? Humans are special. “Not just because humans are Homo Sapiens chauvinists,” he reasoned. “It’s a mystery why our brain is special.” We are able to demonstrate more behaviors than any other animal, and the most remarkable aspect is that these behaviors don’t arise from our genes, but rather from the environment. Many animals are born into this world knowing certain behaviors necessary for survival, such as walking. Humans, on the other hand, are mostly defenseless at birth. But that, according to Lichtman, is an advantage. The fact that we come into this world knowing less about it than any other animal means that we need to learn for much longer. And we are continuously learning even past our college ages. He likened the process to attaining professorship. “By the time you’re finally a professor, you’re certifiably old and don’t care anymore,” he joked. While this process of learning and acquiring skills is beneficial, Lichtman revealed that it actually destroys neural circuits in our brains. When we are born, our brains have the potential to make vast amount of connections, but as we learn, certain pathways are reinforced and others are lost. In a sense, our brains are pruning away and we end up with a small subset of what it could have been — quite depressing thought. But Lichtman quickly dispelled away the gloom by ending of with the idea that, of course, he could be wrong about that. Nicco Mele, Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School led a very interesting analysis on the 2008 elections. He premised this talk with a discussion of the transition from power within institutions to power in individuals. continued on next page
Photo by Caroline Gentile
The Harvard Independent • 02.13.14
harvardindependent.com
5
News
Big Minds, Big Thoughts
“I think the world changed in 1984,” he declared. That was the year Chuck Hull invented stereolithography, the personal 3D printer. Mele used this printer to create shoes for his children one summer after downloading blueprints off the Internet and saved himself a trip to the store. But what would happen, he asked, if someone uploaded the blueprints for a gun and someone were to print that? “There are ways technology has unintended consequences,” he stated. Along with technology is this push of power out of institutions and into individuals, he observed: “It’s not an accident that this is happening,” According to Mele, the Clinton’s basically built the modern political system. And so how did Hilary Clinton lose the race against Barack Obama within the party, one that she had incredible influence in? The key, Mele said, was Obama’s ability to combine top-down with distributive power. Many candidate parties in the past reached out to citizens, but the Obama party did something slightly different — instead of just giving out simple tasks, they invested much more power into the citizens and allowed them to take on much larger initiatives of their own creation. It was this, he argued, that catapulted Obama into victory. Marcyliena Morgan, Professor in the Department of African and African American Studies took the audience into an entirely different direction with her talk on hip-hop. She is a linguistic anthropologist and first got into hip-pop by studying African American women in Mississippi, who only agreed to work with her if she worked with their sons. And their sons were into hiphop. “Hip-hop itself was built on dreams,” she said. Her passion for hip-hop has led her to become the founding director of The Hip-hop Archive and Research Institute (HARI) at the Hutchins Center for African and American Research. Jeffery Miron, Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Economics, discussed the issue of legalizing drugs. “My message is about the policy,” he stated. He clarifies that he does not advocate drug use, but rather advocates abolishing the policy that deems drug use as illegal. The reasons? It just doesn’t work as well as we might hope. Countries around the world spend a lot of resources to enforce prohibition, which is very expensive. However, Miron argues, this expense would be justified if one: drug use is bad, and if two: prohibition actually reduces drug use. Prohibition is set in place in a sense to protect the people from
6 harvardindependent.com
indy continued
themselves. But, the media routinely exaggerates the harms of drug use, Miron revealed. There are certain benefits that people can derive from drugs, such as medicinal properties. In fact, he feels that there is nothing to distinguish harm caused by drugs from harm caused by alcohol, eating too much ice cream, or skiing off a black diamond ski hill. Most importantly, though, Miron believes that prohibition doesn’t drastically reduce drug use, and that it only has modest effects at first. After all, it’s not as we would be a nation of addicts if drugs were legal, he stated. And there are numerous consequences that arise from prohibiting drugs. This policy generates violence, as disputes are often resolved with guns as there are no courts in the underground markets. There is also no quality control available for black-market goods, which can lead to greater numbers of death amongst users. Katherine Merseth, Senior Lectuer on Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, rounded up the evening with a motivating talk on education. “I’m here to convince you of something,” she started off by saying. “I want you, every person in this room, to consider teaching.” Teaching, she said, has the potential to touch lives. After all, every kid is one caring adult away from being a success story, she quoted. And why should we care about children, other than the fact that they are the future leaders? “They are 100% of my social security,” she joked. Merseth asked the audience to imagine an elementary school, where it is a young child’s first day at school. The parent and child are nervously making their way up the stairs and into the building, where the parent will then entrust the child to the teacher. “Hope, aspiration, desperate feeling that schools will do well by our children,” she said, are what the parents are feeling at that moment. “America has tremendous faith in schooling”. And we should not squander that faith. To attract more students to the field of teaching, she helped to create the School Leadership Program and the Teacher Education Program. She introduced a competitive fellowship program for undergraduate students that will aid them in developing skills and entering the field of teaching. At the end of her talk, she asked, “Is there anyone who would take a stand for teaching?” Many stood. Milly Wang ’16 (keqimillywang@college) is thinking big herself after listening to such inspirational talks.
02.13.14 The Harvard Independent
The Other Way America Won at the Olympics
The branding of Russia at the Olympics Games. By WILL HARRINGTON
A
friend of mine spent the fall in Siberia improving his Russian. His bags didn’t include a winter coat when he left in late August. He reasoned that nobody in the world would make warmer winter coats than the Russians in Siberia, so he might as well just buy the best one he’ll ever own while over there. He claimed he did. But when he got back and I saw that his coat —complete with fur hood — was clearly branded in English, I called him out on it. In response, he showed me some of the inside tags and they were all in Russian. Apparently brands are all in English, no matter how authentically Russian. Like my friend’s coat, the Sochi opening ceremonies were big with lots of frills around the edge. It was Russia’s opportunity to redeem itself from the catastrophe that was press coverage of the preceding few days, but it was a lot more than just a tremendous show of fireworks and a flying little girl. Politics abounded in the ceremony itself, but also in the surprising team uniforms of several countries. The main message of all of this is that if there was any question left about it, capitalism seems to have won the Cold War pretty handily. There was an appropriate amount of respect and reference to the communist period in the ceremony, the flying hammer and sickle alongside
The Harvard Independent • 02.13.14 11.21.13
Lenin’s train most notable, but then the organizers decided that Bye Bye Birdie needed a Russian revival. Classic ‘50s cars drove by girls wearing what looked like poodle skirts. This is a shocking recast and Americanization of the actual events of shortage, repression, and censorship that took place in the Soviet Union even after de-Stalinization began 1953. It seems that in post-communist Russia, money can buy happy pictures, if not happy memories. The desire to celebrate history is admirable, but the desire to re-write it much less so. The organizers ought to have stuck with displays of Sputnik and Gagarin, past Olympic victory, and other triumphs of culture; they just don’t have the talent for pop culture that was on display in London two years ago. Beside Russian triumphs of new money marched the American athletes. Star-spangled, but apparently also from the Republic of Polo. Whatever it was, camera angles or just unlucky fortune, it seemed much easier to read the ‘Polo’ branding than the ‘USA’ on their sweaters. Of course a designer has the right to be proud of their work, but it seemed inappropriate in the circumstances. The Olympic Games should be a celebration of the nation, not a corporate brand. We celebrate the athletes in the games, not their equipment. The skiers, not the skis. In the uniforms we should
be celebrating the national symbols such as the flag, unless we count corporatism as a national pastime too. It’s really an unfair characterization to pick on the Americans; US media just gave them a closer shot than anybody else. Further examination of other national outfits reveals that prominent branding is a common thing, sort of. The two camps appear to be function and national fashion. Large winter coats were commonly marked, such as Ireland and Jamaica, but branding was absent in anything that didn’t look like it came off the City Sports rack. Sweden’s streamlined and angular coats, Spain and Bermuda’s blazers, and Russia’s fur greatcoats. It seems the sweater isn’t special enough. But while Russia’s coats for the opening ceremony don’t have a brand name, the athlete warm-ups at the events have a far more interesting brand name. It took me a few events, but I realized I could clearly read the name. It said ‘RUSSIA’, plain and clear in the Latin script with the English spelling. Even the national brand sells itself in English. There may be something in the rules mandating that the Olympic languages of French and English be used for competitive purposes, but that doesn’t seem like it should stop the uniforms from having a single Cyrillic character anywhere. It didn’t stop the countries from entering in Cyril-
lic alphabetical order or announcements being in English, French, and Russian. It’s absurd to declare that America has already won the Olympics outright because of this. As of right now, the nation still has to compete with Norway, Canada, and the Netherlands for medal count, and, really, nobody actually wins the Olympics. Athletes win their events, but no single nation is crowned with a medal at the end of the day, no matter what color or how much they’ve managed to stack up. But America has won in some ways. Countries seem to want to look like us, even if they don’t necessarily want to be us. From big to small, from the massive patriot gala of the opening ceremony to coat brand names, Russia is presenting itself as a normal, global, western nation. Will Harrington ‘16 (harrington@college) really wants one of Tonga’s baller coats. That? To the winter games? Yes.
harvardindependent.com
7
LaughRiot 2014; Indeed Riotous, Indeed a Laugh Inter-University comedy festival brings improv to the Loeb Drama Center’s ex-theatre. By JOANNA SCHACTER
F
riday and Saturday night’s LaughRiot, an improv comedy festival hosted by Harvard’s Immediate Gratification Players, made laughter simple. Comedy is a undeniably a difficult medium of expression; jokes can very easily fall flat, audiences can be an unresponsive bunch, and the line between high and low-brow humor is often crossed for the sake of cheap laughs. However, there is something particularly challenging about improv. In addition to IGP, Suffolk University’s Seriously Bent, Columbia University’s Fruit Paunch and Ohio State University’s Eighth Floor participated in this year’s LaughRiot, and, despite the inherent difficulties of the art, each showed off their sharp wit and quick minds with a rapid-fire back-and-forth. The most entertaining performance of the night was by OSU, who, when prompted with the word “gunshot” by an audience member, launched into a seamless and epic tale neighboring farms battling it out over farming methods. Romance, family drama, marital discord, and a failed lemonade stand were at the heart of the saga. Most importantly, it was outrageously funny and left the audience in stitches. Clever dialogue, and not a single misstep or awkward silent moment, made it difficult not to forget that the multiple short scenes had not in fact been scripted. Between scenes by the guest improve groups, and one by the Immediate Gratification Players themselves, IGP MC’d the event through shot sketches. This was the third time I had seen IGP in action, and they still continue to amaze. My only past experiences with improv had been what little I had seen on television, where there is no guarantee that it is truly improvised, and in elementary school English class theatre workshops which were disastrous, embarrassing, and without even a hint of the synergy that IGP has amongst its members. The title of this year’s LaughRiot was Monsters and Misfits, but other than a drawing of a dragon on the stage backdrop, it was never explained. This begs the question; are those who are funny outcasts? Do we tend to think that being funny is something strange or uncommon? There is something outstanding about the teamwork that is necessary for improvised comedy. Each member needs to have a certain intuition in regards to what those standing next to them on stage might or could say, and how they themselves should phrase their quip to best illicit a humorous response. A great deal of intellect and quick thinking is necessary to be funny, whether as part of an improv comedy troupe, or just in one’s own life, and it is probably true that the talent of “funniness” is undervalued and underdeveloped. Without a doubt, humor is necessary, and IGP did something very important by showcasing it as a talent, a skill, and an art. Just as musical or artistic shows bring enjoyment and intellectual engagement to the viewer, so too does a good laugh. Joanna R. Schacter ’15 (jschacter@college.harvard.edu) takes her tea with honey.
WikiMedia Commons
8 harvardindependent.com
02.13.14 11.21.13 • The Harvard Independent
Broken Girls and Bowman
A comparative look at 2 Broke Girls and Archer. By MICHAEL LUO
F
ridays for me usually consist of watching family-friendly Pixar films, alone, consuming microwavable SpaghettiOs, alone, and falling asleep to Nas’s Illmatic, during class. You might say this is not the ideal college experience, but I argue otherwise. The education attainable through such elegant practices has taught me much more than all the classes I’ve failed. One exercise in particular is the following of television series. For those who don’t know, a television is a magical box that functions much like the screen of your MacBook without the annoyance of the keyboard. So yes, it is a large iPad. As the new semester crawls into February, those like me turn to the excitement of another season of great or awful television, reluctantly renewed postwinter break. While the holy trinity of Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, and CS50 lectures are either being re-watched or re-watched for the second time, I’d like to take this moment to point your attention to two others by the names of 2 Broke Girls and Archer. The reason I picked these two is due in part to their surprisingly similar sense of humor yet drastically different critical reception. To put this in perspective, Archer came to me highly recommended by friends and family; 2 Broke Girls came to me by way of a 12-hour flight. Archer is in its acclaimed fifth season while 2 Broke Girls still mystifies IMDB reviewers on how it got to its third. No matter, I for one have still chosen to loyally watch both for the betterment of my time whilst roommates recruit and rush. The premises of both shows are rather unoriginal: Archer being a cartoony comical take on the archetypical suave spy and 2 Broke Girls being a sarcastic look at stereotypical struggling waitresses trying to make it in New York. So while Archer could be curtly summed up as an Adult Swim version of Get Smart, 2 Broke Girls’s logline probably consisted of an adaptation of the 1970s hit series Alice into 21st century malaise. Archer’s titular hero, Sterling Archer, is stylized on his wiki page as the lovechild of Don Draper and James Bond raised by Charlie Sheen. Now I wish I could’ve come up with something better, but the wiki description is too close to the truth. Selfish, carefree, and outspoken, Sterling leads a cast of equal if not more flawed yet talented agents traversing the globe on secret missions from drag racing with the Yakuza to smuggling cocaine.
The Harvard Independent • 02.13.14 11.21.13
Likewise, Max and Caroline of 2 Broke Girls are portrayed as desperately egotistical individuals with conflicting outlooks on life: Caroline, the once well-endowed socialite turned welfare-seeking waitress, and Max, the perpetual waitress turned reluctant caretaker of her newfound, downtrodden Kardashian. Together they form a formidable team of — you guessed it — wisecracking waitresses with dreams of launching a cupcake business. Now the humor for both shows hinges on two basic ingredients: insults and absurdity. Don’t get me wrong; there is nothing explicitly sinful with this brand of comedy. From legends like Don Rickles and Bob Hope to sensations such as Sarah Silverman and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, this jovial abuse style of humor more often than not receives the roaring approval of an audience willing to laugh, at or with, whatever happens to be the target of abuse. For Archer and 2 Broke Girls, the humor rests on the triumphs of one character over the expense of another. This is seen when Sterling bests his fellow agents, calling out his ex-lover Lana for her in-field oversights or ridiculing accountant Cyril for his social mishaps, be it sexual or fraternal. Meanwhile, Broke Girl #1 doles out acerbic oneliners at Broke Girl #2, alternating between Max’s judgment of Caroline’s unfamiliarity with being poor and Caroline’s shock at Max’s acceptance of living poor. All the while, jokes about race, sex, and drugs permeate every episode of both shows yet on IMDB, Archer has been labeled as “magically raunchy” but 2 Broke Girls is condemned to be “a total waste of time.” Of course, poking fun at a mafia boss amidst an assassination attempt in the Swiss Alps maybe merits more “intellectual humor” than pointing out the shortcomings of the socially inept, physically stunted Asian American diner boss, but this type of exploitation comedy is one and the same. Sure, Archer gets to address global politics and law in the “bro-est” way possible, but 2 Broke Girls provides a seemingly perfect counterpoint with its two silver-tongued female leads trotting over unfortunate guests at their shoddy Brooklyn establishment. It is also necessary to point out the one striking difference: Archer is animated and 2 Broke Girls is live-action, begging the question of whether cartoon characters have a different set of Standards and
Practices. On the other hand, there should also be an appreciation of real people willing not only to say but also to act out the crazy and ludicrous. Yet, probably the most significant difference here is still the premise. Sterling Archer is a lavish secret agent armed with the latest gadgets while Max and Caroline are hourly-wage workers barely making enough to pay the rent. From a different perspective, Archer is a show about narcissists who have money and power but make a mess of everything at an international criminal level, thereby creating hilarious situations that satirize extravagance. In parallel, 2 Broke Girls is a show about two polar opposite friends, who despite all the filth in their laundry and language, still manage to hold onto a dream of making it, hence forming an ironic look at conceited individuals pursuing noble ambitions. So as the lonely TV junkie with absolutely no authority, I beseech the community to give both a chance. Maybe you have already seen Archer because you thought Harvard would lead you to the CIA and eventually “out-fame” Robert Gates, but it seems unjust to discredit one show over another simply because the profession and premise of one earns more than the other. Comedy that insults and offends somehow always gets a few laughs, and while most of us don’t dream to become the greatest waitress possible post-graduation, it does show that fun and laughter, no matter the brand, can be found in the highest and lowest of forms. As someone great once said, “Give everything a chance and maybe you’ll discover something worthwhile.” Those Hallmark cards really come in handy sometimes. Michael Luo ’16 (michaelluo@college) was told to write at his own risk but he doesn’t own Risk.
harvardindependent.com
9
Sports
Phrased in the Form... The Indy interviews College Jeopardy! Contestant Julia Clark. By CHRISTINE WOLFE
J
ulia Clark ‘14 never thought of herself as an athlete. Caustic, quick, and short, her competitions took place mainly off the court. As a debater, she’s studied political, economic, and moral philosophy. As an aspiring scientist, she investigates the dynamics and history of epidemics. As a native of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (the empty part of Canada), prairie vegetation and hockey are ingrained in her mind. Some of this may seem inconsequential, but only the trivial could have prepared her for the biggest competition of her life: College Jeopardy! Clark was one of 15 finalists for this year’s Jeopardy! College Tournament, all vying for the grand prize of $100,000 and a guaranteed spot in the Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions. The Indy sat down with Clark to get an insider’s view on preparation, gameplay, and, naturally, Trebek. Indy: Let’s get the most important question out of the way: what’s he like? Julia Clark: Beautiful man (laughter). No, he’s an interesting guy. During the commercial breaks he takes questions from the audience, and I think the most memorable I heard someone ask was, “Who would win in a fight between you, Bob Barker, and Pat Sajak?” He confirmed that he thought he would win, and I believe him. So that’s all you really need to know. Indy: How long have you wanted to be on Jeopardy!? Would you be willing to go so far as to say this is a dream come true? JC: I would indeed go so far as to say that. I think I wanted to sincerely be on Jeopardy! when I was about ten. I remember one time I was watching the show with my grandmother. I told her I wanted to be on the show, but I wasn’t sure if they let Canadians be on the show. So she facilitated me writing an impassioned letter to the Jeopardy! staff imploring them to please allow Canadians into the kids’ tournament. I don’t think the letter was ever sent. But I bided my time. Indy: What’s the process for getting on the show? JC: The first thing you have to do is take a 50 question online test. I took that test for the first time my freshman year and didn’t hear back from them that time. I took the test again my sophomore year,
10 harvardindependent.com
and I got an in person audition, which is another 50 question test and a mock game. I didn’t hear anything after that. This time, I took the online test in March, had a callback audition in April, and then got the call that they wanted me on the show in late November.
Indy: Which schools are competing? JC: Temple, UDelaware, University of Oklahoma, UChicago, UCLA, Duke, Oakwood University, Princeton, UC Berkeley, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Ohio State, Middlebury, and Ball State. And, you know, Harvard.
From what I’ve been told, about 12-15 thousand people take the online test, they invite about 300 for auditions, and 15 people end up on the show.
Indy: Do you feel that being a Harvard student helped at all, either in your preparation and/or gameplay? JC: I don’t know. Not really; only in so far as that having a liberal arts education helps you to know more things. I don’t think I had any other particular advantage or disadvantage.
Indy: Those are some impressive odds; congratulations. JC: I feel really lucky to have been in the tournament at all. My family has been really supportive, and my friends put up with all the nonstop trivia talk. I’ve had a lot of great mentors over the years who have taught me and have been very helpful, so I’m very thankful for that. Indy: How did you choose what to study? And when did you start? JC: There’s a real canon of Jeopardy! theory and literature online that’s supposed to try and tell you what things are staple questions. Things that come up a lot are state and world capitals, US Presidents, Shakespeare, and the Bible. I put a lot of time into getting those basics down as much as possible. After that, I spent time filling in what might be gaps for me personally, like American history and literature. And in terms of studying strategy, I just made a lot of flashcards. I also went online, where people with even less of a life than I have compiled Jeopardy! archives. Indy: Can you describe how the tournament is structured? JC: There are 15 people in the tournament overall. Any two week tournament has the same basic structure. The first week hosts the quarterfinals. The five winners of the quarterfinals automatically advance to semifinals. Additionally, the four highest scoring non-winners also advance to the semifinals as wild cards. In the semifinals, there are three games. The winners of each of those shows advance to the two-day long final. The person with the highest cumulative score over those two games gets the championship.
Indy: With a lot of negative press coming out about Harvard in the last few years, on top of the general awkwardness we’re all familiar with, did you feel that there was any additional pressure for you to perform well as a representative of the College? JC: There is some pressure coming from a larger brand name school, and there are also some people who want to root against you to see a sort of “underdog” school win. At least, that’s what I thought going in. I didn’t experience that at the tournament, where everyone was really nice to each other. Harvard actually has a pretty terrible record in this tournament; we’ve never won. We’ve come second a couple times, and as I understand, it’s been more than a decade since someone advanced out of the quarterfinals. So that helped keep the pressure off a bit. Indy: Which category were you most hoping to have in your game (witty title and all, please)? JC: What I told the Jeopardy! people when they asked me was “Diseases of the World,” because I love geography and am also very interested in medicine. Realistically, my favorite categories are probably the wordplay ones like Rhyme Time and Before and After. So maybe something like “Disease World Capitals Before and After,” in the unlikely case something that specific ever came up. Indy: What about Final Jeopardy? JC: I was hoping for something about geography, because I think that’s one of my stronger areas, especially compared to some other people who tend to see that as pure trivia, so they don’t end up
02.13.14 • The Harvard Independent
Sports
indy
...of a Question studying it as much. I think it’s one of those things you actually have to put effort into learning about rather than just picking it up. Indy: You’ve been watching the tournament air the last few nights; what category have you seen that you wish you’d had? JC: There was a classical music category that I really would have wanted. And there was a category about sports on Tuesday that I knew all the
The Harvard Independent • 02.13.14
answers to, which was very surprising (sports are not my strongest area). Indy: There’s more to this than the glory of trivia, correct? What are you going to do with the money you won? JC: Every quarterfinalist wins at least $5,000. Semifinalists win at least $10,000. Third place is $25,000, second place is $50,000, and the grand prize is $100,000. I’m not allowed to disclose how I performed until my rounds air. But in any case, I will
give a decent amount to charity, probably something health related. I’m graduating and would like to do some traveling over the summer, so some will go towards that. Anything left over will go into furnishing my apartment next year; I’m going to buy the biggest TV I can find (so I can watch Alex Trebek in HD). Indy: How do you come down from a high like that? Do you feel you’ve peaked, both as an intellectual and
a person? JC: Yeah, I think it’s over. You can watch Clark’s quarterfinal against A&M and Vanderbilt tonight at 7:30 on CBS. The Indy wants to remind Yale that, no matter how Harvard performs, the Bulldogs weren’t even in the running this year. #YuckFale
harvardindependent.com
11
c a pt ur e d& s ho t b yANNAPAPP