
Exit the Polar Bear.
A bold bet and incorrect response Tuesday did in Cindy Cammarn, as the Bowdoin College junior failed to make it past the “Jeopardy! College Championship” semifinal round.
Cammarn, 21, lost a chunk of her accumulated bank during the second round by way of an incorrect American History question.
At the start of Final Jeopardy, Cammarn trailed the eventual winner from Georgia Tech University by just $600 and led the eventual runner up, from Tufts University, by $1,200.
However, Cammarn unsuccessfully bet her entire bank — save $1 — on her reponse to the answer: “Because Chinese censors block mention of this 1989 date, Chinese bloggers refer to it as ‘535.’”
The correct question is, “What is June 4?” That’s the date of the student uprising in Tiananmen Square when the Chinese National Army stormed a protest for democracy and killed or wounded several hundred people.
Cammarn’s question was “What is May 5?”
She has trailed the eventual winner, Kristen Jolley of Georgia Tech, by $600 heading into the final round.
Cammarn and Jolley battled back and forth throughout the game with Jolley leading throughout the second round, but a late charge kept Cammarn close heading into Final Jeopardy.
“I’m disappointed, and it would have been lovely if I had gotten (either of the questions) right, but at least I was in the right area, particularly with the American history question,” Cammarn said. “But at least I did get to have a victory moment last week, so that was nice.”
An appearance on another game show will have to wait a while. But her “Jeopardy!” experience has created another desire.
“I feel kind of inspired to create kind of a Quiz Bowl or trivia contest here at school,” she said, “because we don’t have one anymore. I think that would be great.”
jtleonard@timesrecord.com
The Times Record Sustaining Sponsor
We believe a community must be informed to thrive. bowdoin.edu
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less