Top Five Countries By Category #2

From the answers I'm guessing the Most Food Consumed and Most Alcohol Consumed are per capita, and the Most Billionaires is the raw total?

The quiz asks for Nobel prizes per capita. I know it's confusing and makes no sense so I recommend changing it to overall. Other than that, good quiz!

Love the quizzes so far but gotta agree with Sulps on this one. Making this category per capita isn't really fun its just shots in the dark at countries with low populations instead of actually having to think about the category.

I dunno. I got all but St Lucia by thinking which small countries would be more likely to pick up a Nobel prize. I agree that St Lucia is something you need to know to get right, you're not going to guess it.

It makes extremely lot of sense. If not per capita, ofcourse the largest countries are allways gonna on top of these lists.

Like many states in the u.s. are bigger than a lot of countries, they ve just "united" them.

@xkhan, shot in the dark ??? Now at least you ve got to think about who won nobel prizes, not who has the biggest landmass, or breed the most...

Smallest Population was listed on the prequel. Otherwise great quiz!

Nice follow on quiz. Thanks. Was very shocked by some of the answers

Everest straddles China and Nepal. I suspect most of it is in China, which would explain why China is listed first.

The border runs across its summit. China is first in alphabetical order. That was the logic I used when I made this quiz.

alcohol and food consumption it makes sense to calculate per capita. In absolute terms it would just mirror population figures. Immigrants it can be interesting to see both in absolute terms and per capita... so no big deal either way. Nobel prizes it really doesn't make sense to measure per capita. It's not as if you get a number of Nobel prizes each year based on the total number of smart people in the country. It's just one prize per year in each category, given to someone or someones who have made some notable achievement. It actually makes more sense to measure Olympic medals per capita than Nobel prizes, though a similar argument can be made for Olympic medals it's not quite the same thing.

and since it's only one prize per year... if done per capita you get really bizarre and uninteresting results as seen here. St Lucia? Not exactly known for their great contributions to science. It's monumentally silly to measure this per capita.

Relevant to the 178k people who live in St Lucia, yes. Relevant to the other 7 billion people in the world? No. You and I both know the only reason why you feel the need to disagree with me on this.

Stop whining

I'm not whining. I'm making a relevant point that you failed to understand.

Fad: you're saying that Switzerland has a stronger record of intellectual achievement than Great Britain? That's, frankly, absurd. It's absurd even before I bring up that, measured per capita, it would seem that Saint Lucia has contributed 6x as much as the UK toward the arts, economics, international diplomacy, and the sciences. And 12x as much as the USA. Move over Kipling, Russell, Eliot, Higgs, Crick, Churchill, Fleming, Bernard Shaw, and Amnesty International! Stop being so uppity, Thorne, Dylan, Obama, Krugman, Carter, Nash, Morrison, Friedman, King, Steinbeck, Hemingway, Faulkner, and Roosevelt! Your prizes were clearly just a fluke of demographics and had nothing at all to do with a culture of competitiveness or excellence, or any history of academic, artistic, or scientific achievement.

Make way for some TRUE titans of economics and literature: Kittitians Arthur Lewis and Derek Walcott.

I don't think the results are bizarre or uninteresting; quite the contrary in fact. Honestly I don't see why anyone has a problem with this. There are other featured quizzes that ask about the topic in absolute terms. So what if this one doesn't? If nothing else, one could look at it as a challenge.

^pretty much right. USA blows away every other country out there, and the UK has a commanding lead over 3rd place though China is rapidly improving. Every other country has very few, relatively, regardless of which list you look at.

So there are no universities in Germany that are hard to get into because their outstanding reputation leads to them having more applications for enrollment than their capacity would allow?

To me "elite" university means a university with a strong international reputation for producing high-quality research and/or graduates. This... in turn... usually leads to those universities having to become quite selective in whom they enroll. But maybe getting in to a good school in Germany is based on a lottery system or something? I honestly don't know. I know some parts of the Polish education system is like that. Even if so, I don't think that would make the schools less elite, relative to other universities with weaker reputations and less noteworthy output.

Rejecting students that they don't consider qualified... okay... that's what American universities do, too... What's the difference? I mean there are schools in the US, too, that will take basically anyone and everyone. We call them community colleges. They are definitely not considered elite. They don't have a good reputation, so getting in to them is not as competitive. If Harvard accepted every student that applied to the school, it would have to expand the size of its campus 20x over. And if it accepted every student that *wanted* to go there (many simply don't even bother applying, as they know they've got no chance), then they'd have to have a school 100x larger. If it was free to attend on top of that, maybe 1000x larger.

It doesn't seem plausible that the top German schools would be able to accept everyone who wanted to go to them unless there just aren't that many people who want to go to them.

and, for reference, in 2019 Harvard received 43,330 applications. Only 1,962 applicants were admitted. Or less than 4.5%

NCs may differ to some extent from uni to uni but the most relevant difference is between the subjects. If you want to study medicine or psychology at a German university, you need excellent grades. Entering sociology or anglistics is far easier regardless of where you apply.

"Most English Spoken as a 2nd Language"

appearantly this is in absolute numbers and not in percentages..

Czech republic is Czechia now, got one wrong because this isnt up to date.

Apparently on 2 May 2016 Czechia was finally officially adopted as the short name, i.e. submitted to the United Nations (also Tchéquie in French, Chequia in Spanish and Чехия in Russian, I can't check for Chinese and Arabic.)

Of course, as no country has official authority over foreign languages, you're free to use the long form, only practice will show if it will catch on. Until then Czechia is in the same rank as Timor-Leste, Cabo Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, and also Moldova, the only country that was successful in pushing the native version into English.

We have allways called it Tsjechië in the netherlands, without the republic. I wonder if that was the case in the other countries you ve listed or if it is since czechia changed it.

Huh, I definitely thought San Marino was bigger than that.

What is the source of "Calories Consumed Per Capita"? I would expect that this category correlates with the "average weight". But this is rather not the case, right?

I would imagine you would have to include things like distance traveled without assistance per capita and weight lifted per capita to conclude that.

I guess it is simply about food consumed. So that is produced food-export+import. But then you wouldnt know how much food would go to waste.

I think there might be a big difference per country in how much is thrown away. At home, half a plate if unfinished food.. or in supermarkets, stuff that is on their "best before" (which sometimes is still good for months...)

I expect rich countries to be much more wastefull and careless. Though slow but steady there becomes awareness of the millions of pounds of good supermarket food that goes straight to the landfill. Not to mention stupid stuff like not straight cucumbers... (ok I can see there can be made a lot of jokes about that now haha)

Maybe the same amount of time given to all countries of the world quiz???!

Only if you don't know the answers and are left taking random stabs in the dark for multiple categories.

Minimum altitude and no Maldives, a country barely 6 feet above sea level. Do all those listed have territory that is below sea level?

The Dead Sea, between Israel and Jordan, is famously more than 400 meters below sea level.

Hmm missed the part where it said one country no longer existed... :/

The Soviet Union really liked drinking... Who knew?

Must ve been drinking ;) haha

Two questions: Does Russia not include any medals ever won by the USSR in its own accomplishments then? Because if they do, then these medals SHOULD be attributed to Russia (but only providing if Russia does, which I'm sure it will be doing).

And if half of the Netherlands is supposed to be technically below sea level (and would be, if it wasn't for their dijks), why hasn't it made the list for countries of minimum altitude?

Russia and the USSR: not the same thing

Netherands elevation: this category is about the single lowest extreme in a country, not average elevation across the entire country. If it was averages... then I think the Maldives, Tuvalu, and Kiribati lead up that list. The Netherlands might be somewhere close to the top, too.

Most alcohol consumed... lol

La France a autant de coupes du monde que l'Argentine et l'Uruguay maintenant.

The FIFA World Cup question is inaccurate now that France has won 2 Men's World Cups.

I think the minimum altitude gives a very skewed picture. Because all of these low points are lakes or dead sea. Ofcourse it is gonna be low then. You might be technically right these countries have low points .. ok I ve stopped myself there, I was under the assumption the bottom of the lakes were used, I checked and it at least for Argentina wasnt the case.

still I think minimum average elevation would be more fun/makes more sense. Then you can think about countries that are low. Instead of happening to know 1 specific point some country.

Btw then it d be: maldives (1,8m), singapore (15m), qatar (28m), netherlands (30m), gambia/denmark (34m)

That's a completely different category.

who is going to guess the soviet union? it doesn't exist anymore

That's why you should read the instructions.

One of them has 6

Because countries are tied with the same number of world cup wins.

I love the joke about 'Immigrants in the Vatican'.......All citizens of Vatican City are Roman Catholic. The only people allowed to live in the Vatican City are clergy (religious people) and the Swiss Guards who are the Police force of the country. Over 2,400 other people work in the country but they travel in each day from Italy.

This quiz is idiotic. You can literally guess any country without reading the questions and you will get correct responses.

I wouldn't call it idiotic... but I have expressed the opinion before that all of the quizzes in this series have far too many categories on them, leading to the result that typing in random countries as fast as you can is a pretty sound strategy. I think they would be better if each quiz was split into 2 or 3 different quizzes.

It's not a top 5 category if there are 6 countries in world cup.

I have no idea why but I immediately guessed Moldova for alcohol, I've met maybe a couple Moldovan people and I have hardly any knowledge of the culture so not sure where that intuition came from lol

Why does one of them have six answers?

I guess it's because Argentina, Uruguay and France are all tied on 2.

The Most Men's FIFA World Cup Wins has 6 countries.

I guess it's because Argentina, Uruguay and France are all tied on 2.