![“[Building nerf blasters] became this outlet of creativity for me that hasn't been matched by anything else. The process [of] making a build complete to your desire is such a painstakingly difficult process, but I've had to learn from [the skills needed from] soldering to proper painting. There's so many different options for everything, if you think about it, it exists. The best part is [that] if it doesn't exist, you can build it yourself," Ishaan Parate said.](https://harkeraquila.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/DSC_8149-900x604.jpg)
![“When I came into high school, I was ready to be a follower. But DECA was a game changer for me. It helped me overcome my fear of public speaking, and it's played such a major role in who I've become today. To be able to successfully lead a chapter of 150 students, an officer team and be one of the upperclassmen I once really admired is something I'm [really] proud of,” Anvitha Tummala ('21) said.](https://harkeraquila.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Screen-Shot-2021-07-25-at-9.50.05-AM-900x594.png)
![“I think getting up in the morning and having a sense of purpose [is exciting]. I think without a certain amount of drive, life is kind of obsolete and mundane, and I think having that every single day is what makes each day unique and kind of makes life exciting,” Neymika Jain (12) said.](https://harkeraquila.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-03-at-4.54.16-PM.png)
![“My slogan is ‘slow feet, don’t eat, and I’m hungry.’ You need to run fast to get where you are–you aren't going to get those championships if you aren't fast,” Angel Cervantes (12) said. “I want to do well in school on my tests and in track and win championships for my team. I live by that, [and] I can do that anywhere: in the classroom or on the field.”](https://harkeraquila.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/DSC5146-900x601.jpg)
![“[Volleyball has] taught me how to fall correctly, and another thing it taught is that you don’t have to be the best at something to be good at it. If you just hit the ball in a smart way, then it still scores points and you’re good at it. You could be a background player and still make a much bigger impact on the team than you would think,” Anya Gert (’20) said.](https://harkeraquila.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/AnnaGert_JinTuan_HoHPhotoEdited-600x900.jpeg)
![“I'm not nearly there yet, but [my confidence has] definitely been getting better since I was pretty shy and timid coming into Harker my freshman year. I know that there's a lot of people that are really confident in what they do, and I really admire them. Everyone's so driven and that has really pushed me to kind of try to find my own place in high school and be more confident,” Alyssa Huang (’20) said.](https://harkeraquila.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/AlyssaHuang_EmilyChen_HoHPhoto-900x749.jpeg)
Beyond the Game: Single-elimination games expose flaws in social judgment
Wikimedia Commons
Senior Oklahoma Sooner guard Buddy Hield, who averaged around 25 points per game, won the James A. Naismith, which is awarded to the best college basketball player, this past Sunday. The University of Oklahoma lost 51-95 against Villanova University in the Final Four. By not winning it all, Hield seemingly did not match his being recognized as the top collegiate player, even though his season proved excellent by collegiate standards.
April 4, 2016
May the best team win.
An unpredictable combination of grueling losses whittled 68 teams down to just one: the Villanova Wildcats, who, in a storybook ending, upset the top-seeded University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Tar Heels 77-74 on a three-point buzzer-beater.
As with every March Madness tournament, single-game eliminations in the Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament raise the stakes for top-notch athletic performance. Every contest is do-or-die.
And among all the “madness,” the purpose of this tournament, as with any other, is to witness a wide range of talent and ultimately reward the most deserving team for their first-class prowess.
Not to dampen Villanova’s well-fought win, but across nearly all sports, an apparent inconsistency exists in comparing relative skill. When can we truly determine if one athlete or team is superior to another? Do we make these judgments after one matchup, one series or one season? At times, our impatient desire to answer these answers prevents us from finding the correct answers.
In the end, all we know is that one team defeated another in an isolated moment in history. Whether we can extrapolate that specific incident to say that one team is better than the other may not be justified, especially when we generalize one game as an indication of definite superiority or inferiority.
Taking a step back, we can make the same argument about the Masters, Wimbledon, the Super Bowl, the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, even the Olympics. At what point can we unequivocally select the victor? Or more generally – how much does an individual action define the overall success or failure of a team or person?
Examining this issue in a broader context reveals avenues of self-exploration that help determine how a single action has shaped the views of ourselves and how people perceive us based off of this action. For example, how much blame can we legitimately bestow on a person for a first-time offense? In contrast, how much praise is warranted for a “fortuitous” victory?
The “madness” in this annual college basketball tournament refers to the several unpredictable upsets of top-ranked teams by less distinguished schools. Yet, the tournament’s single-elimination structure leads to many doubting if the advancing team is truly the better team.
On one hand, our performances in response to certain events can greatly define our reputations. On the other hand, people may consider some scenarios with a grain of salt, attributing uncharacteristic triumphs and defeats to merely coincidence. The ambiguity lies in where we draw the line between justified and accidental success and failure.
Let’s say a boss is deciding to promote one of two workers. One fortuitously landed the firm’s biggest client, while the other accidentally botched a significant business deal. Is it justified to promote the former or fire the latter based off of these one-time events, which may not represent either person’s overall expertise?
Admittedly, comparing tournament logistics and ethical conditions seems like a bit of a stretch. Yet both reside on a moral question: to what degree should we judge someone based off of a single action?
Quite frequently, we make impulsive judgments about life decisions with limited information, just as we see consistently throughout athletic tournaments. Yet, determining the best competitor or making the right decision can take longer than what our patience or our experiences dictate.
Ultimately, March Madness or any other competition based off of single events may not produce the deserving winner because winning or losing solely lies on an individual performance and not on an individual’s overall skill.
