Wonderland: I Won University Challenge, Thursday 9.45pm, BBC Two

Posted by Tom Murphy

One of the lovely silly things about British TV is how much we love University Challenge. From the film Starter for 10 to this year's outbreak of Trimblemania, “Britain's poshest pub quiz” (as one of the participants in this documentary calls it) still exerts a hold, even after 47 years.

This programme tracked down 10 of the 156 winning team members, from Francis Lambert (New College Oxford, 1964) to Susannah Darby (Christ Church Oxford, 2008), to find out how the experience had changed their lives. The quick answer: not very much at all.

While the 10 people interviewed had a wild variety of life stories, not many of them had much to do with winning University Challenge. In fact, any random group of high-performing students would probably have thrown up a similar range of experiences.

More interestingly, they also ruminated on what it's like to be highly intelligent in a country that's generally suspicious of anyone who appears “too clever by half”. Susannah Darby was bullied at school for her ability, while Pamela Groves (Keele, 1968 - pictured above) said that potential boyfriends backed off when they realised how her brain worked.

The winning Birkbeck team of 2003 provided two participants who struggled to deal with their racing intellects. Recovering alcoholic Tony Gillham drank excessively in an attempt to calm down his mental activity, while Thor Halland experimented with cocaine, heroin and LSD in an attempt to “fix” his brain.

As intriguing as the participants were, the documentary was let down slightly by some hackneyed sub-Martin Parr camerawork and the kind of plinky-plonky background music that always indicates “quirky”. You sensed the producers wanted to suggest "the curse of University Challenge", while the patronising 20-something interviewer didn't help much, either.

So why do we still tune in to hear the answers to questions that we don't even understand half the time? Luke Pitcher (Somerville Oxford, 2002) summed it up by saying it's important that people still know “that stuff”. “It's like the Statue of Liberty,” he concluded. “You don't want to look at it all the time, but it's important to know it's there.”

SEE ALSO:
The Schoolboy Who Sailed the World >>
The F-Word is back >>
The Event: How Racist Are You? >>

Comments

[paul]

I thought they were all absolutely brilliant- especially Pamela with whom I'd far rather spend an evening than a lot of people I can think of. As the programme cited only in England could we be blessed with a phrase such as " too clever by half". Three cheers for maintaining their delightful individuality!!!

[katharine]

just one thing in reply to Diane- Pamela (my mother) is mad as cheese, no question. But she DID get married, has two kid and holds down a steady job! and, i can't say this enough, does not, as a rule, morris dance in costume in her living room.
but, uh, yeah, just be thankful she didn't get her drums out...

[Astaroth]

Note to Peter:
You mean 'knowledge' not 'education'.
Education is the acquisition of knowledge, or the imparting of same, depending on whether you are the educatee or the educator.
UC is most definitely a test of knowledge, and not of intelligence, and has always been biased against science and technology.

[Sue]

I found this programme left a bad taste in the mouth. The presenter and, presumably, the production team appeared to be mocking the participants in a rather unkind way, focusing mainly on their eccentricities (lifestyle choices such as dress and diet) and moving on as soon as any of them expressed any positive views (a happy marriage, conquering alcoholism). It would have been really interesting to find out more about the intellectual activities of the particiapants and explore their obvious neuro-diversity. Instead we were given a programme which lacked empathy and which seemed to be seeking to shore up prejudices and compound the bullying already experienced by the participants.

[Teddy Bear]

What a sad programme.

Intelligent ! yes ---- but in terms of personal relationships they nearly all failed.

Their fault; the fault of Society that treats such people with near contempt, or was it just a matter of 'their 30 mins. of fame'. The rest of us can look forward to only 15 mins..

[DIANE]

I enjoyed the programme, mostly because they were all "characters" but it did seem as if the programme was suggesting that a) if you won UC and b) if you were intelligent and educated then you were an oddball. YOu notice they didn't pick anyone "conventional" for want of a better word i.e. married, 2 kids, steady job, doing well, no health/mental problems - this programme implied ok yes you are intelligent and you won UV but you have ended up sad/eccentric/weird/alcoholic. The interviewer always had that laugh in her voice as if she was there to mock them, and when the old guy couldn't find himself on Google and then they put up afterwards "He is on Google" implying he's too doddery or past it. Didn't like the tone.

[chez]

The thing I watch it for is to see if I can answer ANY questions at all but even sweeter is if I answer a question that the university students don't get. I have occasionally. The one that comes to mind was the binary one - convert 101 into another base. They looked glazed by it. I got it. Yeehah!

[peter]

It is a nonsense to suggest that the participation in a team that wins university challenge can in any way be equated with 'intelligence' - to do so is to confuse it with education, a totally different thing. Intellegence is the capacity to understand at increasing levels of coplexity and solve problems; education is (in the UC sense) ability to recall facts.