The Popularity of Countdown: A damning indictment on the condition of British education.

A critical review by Prof. Andrew Garside phD, Head of English Language skills, Durham University.

On the OpenU forum, a recurring discussion involves criticism of television as an educational tool, TV quiz shows, game-shows and reality TV programs only gain verisimilitude because of the presenters used, brilliant marketing tactics employed and their aiming broadside at the lowest end of socio-educational classification.  They create a misconception of these shows representing the height of knowledge and intellect.  However, a basic examination of the format of most of these programs reveal their true nature and target audience.  Today, I will break down the format of one of the UK' most popular, populist gameshow and attempt to deter you from populism and cultism of 'dumbed down' television. 

When one is learning at a higher academic level, they will find little assistance from British television.  It is populist and aimed at the 'masses', therefore it has to be retentive for those with below average education levels.  A definitive example of this is Countdown, held up by the afternoon viewing pool as 'intellectual', unfortunately and with respect, that afternoon viewing pool comprises pensioners battling Alzheimer's, college dropouts and the unemployed.  It speaks volumes that the original Spanish version was initially devised as a children's show, aimed at 8-15 year olds. 

Winners and champions of the show are hailed by the cult of the uneducated as mathematical geniuses or language masters, this utter malapropism suggests that they should be procuring our positions, lecturing in a varsity environment.  I see no example of even the most basic theoretical mathematics or evidence of even the most basic grasp on language in the course of the series, in fact most successful contestants are either children (who naturally have an aptitude for rearranging letters) or college dropouts (who have a lot of time on their hands).

The show is comprised of four basic sections:

1. Anagram:  Finding the longest permissible word from a selection of eight letters.
2. Numeracy:  Using the basic four prime arithmetic functions to find the target number from six selected single-digit integers.
3. Teaser:  An anagram with a cryptic clue.  Probably the only worthwhile round.
4. Anecdote:  Susie Dent is allegedly a Lexicographer, however her selection of etymological examples makes the academic world wonder about her credentials. Susie simply reads verbatim from the Penguin or Oxford 'pop' guides and does not even consider alternative or conflicting etymological origins.  For example, on this website, we all know that it is misleading to say that many contemporary phrases originated in the military.  . It is more correct to say that a lot of phrases originated throughout the working class but would rarely be recorded in writing until they were adopted by their superiors. The Royal Navy and British Army recorded a multitude of daily actions and so the administrative staff would begin to use the vernacular terms used by the operatives. Terms used by workers in other industries where such written records were not necessary will not have been recorded and therefore lost to history.

So what is wrong with Countdown?

The shows presenters and producers admit that the show is not intended to be an academic challenge and is merely light entertainment, unfortunately it is sometimes given verisimilitude by it's cult following of Alzheimer-riddled pensioners, college dropouts, pseudo-intellectual unemployed and bored housewives who genuinely believe it to be a test of knowledge or intellect.  The malapropism of opinion here is ironic because the same grouping would not understand a varsity lecture in either Theoretical Mathematics or English Language.  To expouse that the four base arithmetic functions in basic numeracy is a test of ones mathematical nous is as laughable as the notion that a 'wordsearch' is a test of ones vocabularic standard.  The content of the show exposes the veil of pretence, it really is a childrens show for adults.

The letters round is principally a wordsearch with a lack of clear, unequivocal defined rules and no clear parameters.  The stated rules are no hyphenated words, no proper nouns and no foreign words.  Also the word has to be listed in the OED abridged version and not the 20 volume used by true lexicographers.  The shows producers have admitted that when an obvious word is mentioned that they cannot find listed, Susie Dent and the team of researchers are able to use a little 'discretion' and they will neglect to show the dictionary inclusion.  This causes several issues:  

1. Commonly used adjectives become proper nouns alongside their orignal status following poular usage, when it comes to these words, we use the official OED 20-volume version alongside online regular updates.  Conversely on the show,  hoover (an adjective derived from proper noun) has been accepted and havenic (an abstract adjective that evolved into a capitalised proper noun in the US, but not here) has been refused.  Such contradictions can be seen weekly.  
2. Hyphenated words over time can fuse and become morphemes, accepted portmanteau or simply singular words, I seriously doubt that the abridged dictionary keeps up with our online varsity editions.  
3. Foreign words can enter dictionaries at any time, as dictioners believe the usage demands it.  I have seen several contradictions on the show, for example:  freude has been refused and blitz has been accepted.  Both words entered the English dictionary in the first half of the 20th century and are both actually listed in the OED abridged version.

The show never mentions that the dictionary they use also has it's own rules for inclusion, clearly limiting a contestants options.  The issues continue:

    4.   The OED abbridged version does not actually list any single syllable adjectives with                     comparative extensions such as barer (listed underneath bare), older nor the superlative             form such as barest and oldest.  Suzie Dent is not consistent with accepting these.  She             tends to allow words of this format which are obvious such as dafter.  However, because             she does not have the relevant reference she is fraught with convolution (as does her                   team behind the scene apparently) when she is unaware of whether the word follows the             stipulation of single/ double consonant such as when fat becomes fatter or fattest but                   not fater.  The worst example I saw of this was the denial of the word funer.  Admittedly               funner is more widely used and accepted but funer has as much validity as a word as                 fatter, the inconsistency is prodigious.  
     5.  Also the OED abridged version contains a small amount of scientific terms but not all.                 Paradoxically this is true with literary terms too.  This puts those with bigger vocabularies             at a much greater disadvantage as many if the words they know will be in the standard                 20-volume issue may not be included in the abridgement.  This is especially true for those           who have developed an academic vocabulary within the varsity.  The irony that exists due           to the non-acceptance of literary terms mean that those who have studied language at                 Levels 5-7 on the national curriculum will not be able to submit terms that they use daily.

Any challenge by contestants on these grounds (doubtful to happen considering the players any way) is routinely edited out of the final cut, but if I were on the show I would be challenging Ms Dent continuosly and requesting clarification.  That is the reason why you will not see any contestants with doctorates in Language competing on the show.  One of my colleagues and I wrote to Star Media recently, presenting them with a list of errors that we found alongside complaints and suggestions.  The response was interesting in that they admitted the game-show was primarily 'light entertainment', and was not produced with academics in mind.  They were aware of the inconsistencies within the letters round and had no intention of changing them.  They have a policy whereby, if they subsequently decide that they have treated a contestant unfairly, the contestant would be given the opportunity to return and play again.

Another issue I take with the letters round is that, like scrabble players, the contestants can submit words for which they have no notion of its definition.  In any vocabulary exercise or test for my students, this is an imperative objective, otherwise anyone who has the most basic knowledge of prefixes and suffixes can create words with a good presumption of its inclusion in the dictionary.  The presenter, Susie Dent, in my opinion, has an extremely limited vocabulary evident by her verbatim oration sourced directly from the dictionary in front of her.

The Numbers Game is as equally depressing.  When competitors do well at this, they are described as 'mathematical geniuses'.  In varsity terms the number game would be labelled basic numeracy.  The concept of which involves the four most basic arithmetic functions, which should be left in primary school, following mastery of counting.  The functions adding, subtraction, multiplication and division are everyday practical mathematics which 99% of people are adequately skilled in.  They are used everyday, whether by the housewife or husband in the supermarket or the businessman doing his accounts.  Any one of these 99% would become proficient in this round if they merely practised for two weeks and became accustomed to the timing component.  However, those 99% are mostly preoccupied with bigger things and if they have an interest in developing mathematical skills they would be learning about mathematical theory instead of concentrating on brushing up an entry level numeracy skill.  This show creates a verisimilitude to its viewers pertaining to the myth that the numeracy round is the pinnacle of mathematical study.  Do these peple know how to calculate the volume of a sphere or Algebraic K theory?  No one could even pass an access course without this knowledge and yet 'cultism' reinforces this myth of the shows laughable 'intellectual' label.

I allegorise this with my students as a football penalty competition in the UK.  None of the professional footballers get involved, and it is won by an unknown teenager.  This does not make him the best in the UK at taking penalties, and either further from being the best at football.  The professional players at the top of the game simply did not feel the need to waste their time with the singular skill, they would rather concentrate their efforts on more advanced parts of their game.  I am sure that Rachel Riley is a very competent academic, she possese a doctorate in Quantum Mechanics and is capable of answering some very complex equations and problems as she did for Royal Mail, helping them with convoluted budgeting software. Watching her taking on such mundane and basic tasks is disheartening too despite the audiences apparant mesmerisation at her numeracy skills.  I imagine she does not get any job-satisfaction at continuously pouring over the equivalent of a seven-year olds school-work, she must find it tedious as admitted by Carole Vordeman following her forced resignation from the show.  I do not consider my mathematics skills to be great but even I have a good understanding of trigonometry functions and how to find the volume of a sphere, after watching this tripe I seriously doubt if the contestants and viewers are able to do so.  If anything, they may be able to improve the speed at which they count their change owed to them when in the local convenience store.

I have been considering suggestions for new rounds that are relevant to the academic level of the viewers which are attracted to this show:

• Noughts and crosses
• Spelling Bee 
• Basic Sudoku
• Designating wooden shapes into the corresponding holes in a box.

Remember you are studying at a university level, I would not expect any students to be showing reverance to adults participating in Primary School tasks.  I do not expect any pre-graduate to fall for the cult of populist TV quiz shows.  I have no doubt that most of you with a little practise could out-perform the contestants we see on this show but please don't waste your time for a porcelain tea-pot.  In my role as head of the student advisory committee, I would recommend this program for pre-teens, entry level (pre-level 1) stage adult learners and the elderly to help their battle against Alzheimers.  

I suggest the following alternative viewing for university students and to treat all TV quiz shows as light entertainment, nothing more:

QI

Connections

Dara O'Briain's School Of Hard Sums

University Challenge

Mastermind

Documentary Channels (and not all of them)

Newsnight, Question Time

and of course,

The Open University Online Channel