Skip to main content

Universally Challenged

 Earlier this year I was surprised and delighted to be the answer to a question on University Challenge, the venerable and much-loved quiz show, so I was even more filled with jollity to be asked to appear on the Lancaster team for the Christmas edition of the show, which features graduates with a little more experience of life, the universe and everything, rather than the usual youths. The format otherwise, though, is the same, down to the sizzling quizmastership of Jeremy 'Take No Prisoners' Paxman.

The result of the invitation was a trip to the ITV studios in the glossy new MediaCity development that has transformed the old Salford Docks into something rather glamorous. Across the water, Coronation Street actors smoulder on their new set, while in the main development BBC and ITV come together in a friendly merge that is somehow well reflected in the way ITV makes University Challenge for its old rivals.

MediaCity is worth an exploration in its own right - and we were staying in the Holiday Inn that is right in the middle of the complex - but inevitably the highlight was the filming of the show itself. I was one of the less experienced of the contestants when it came to TV, but even old hands were a little nervous at taking part in such an institution. In total there were 14 teams taking part, of which 4 would go through to the semi-finals, representing a handful of Oxbridge colleges and some of the more modern institutions.

I can't deny I was nervous, but when it came down to it, it was great fun. Our team genuinely enjoyed it in the good old British sense of 'it's the taking part that counts', so win or lose, we were in it for the enjoyment. This helped hugely by the make up of the team - brilliant people one and all. Apart from me, Lancaster was represented by the Daybreak news presenter Ranvir Singh, the film actor (also about to be in Games of Thrones) Roger Ashton-Griffiths and the food critic and TV food judge Matthew Fort. I can say nothing about the result - but we had a truly brilliant experience (probably best of all socialising over a meal afterwards).

If you want to see Christmas University Challenge in action it starts tonight, Friday 20 December, on BBC2 at 7.30pm. Our match against the University of Kent is on tomorrow night, 7.05pm, again on BBC2.
Photo (c) ITV Studios, reproduced with permission

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope