Well, part 2 is pretty risky, since lets say you get 7.4, and estimate to 7.39, but it was actually 7.43, and you get absolute blank on ur pointsknittingfrenzy18 wrote:The National event wasn't ridiculous, but I do hope they were being nice and consistent with the water too, making sure that it was re-calibrated/re-measured each period, and since they didn't have us go over the same objects (though identical, they weren't exactly the same), I hope they judged each of part 1 and part 2 by the objects in the respective rooms.
But yeah, it was pretty organized. It was sort of like that at States, and I'm pretty sure it couldn't get much better.
Was it just me, or part 2 and 3 of Metric Mastery in general are pretty hard to screw up? Anyone who spends 2 hours on MM can probably get an A or A+ on any part 2 and 3.
Anyways, I'm glad I got to know a very important part of standard science these days, and I'm so pumped for Picture This next year. My sister and I are psychic.
The bulk of a teams score I feel usually comes from the estimating since you have to be extremely precise and accurate for measuring, and even if you are a fifth of a millimeter off, you get no points.awesome90220 wrote:Well, part 2 is pretty risky, since lets say you get 7.4, and estimate to 7.39, but it was actually 7.43, and you get absolute blank on ur pointsknittingfrenzy18 wrote:The National event wasn't ridiculous, but I do hope they were being nice and consistent with the water too, making sure that it was re-calibrated/re-measured each period, and since they didn't have us go over the same objects (though identical, they weren't exactly the same), I hope they judged each of part 1 and part 2 by the objects in the respective rooms.
But yeah, it was pretty organized. It was sort of like that at States, and I'm pretty sure it couldn't get much better.
Was it just me, or part 2 and 3 of Metric Mastery in general are pretty hard to screw up? Anyone who spends 2 hours on MM can probably get an A or A+ on any part 2 and 3.
Anyways, I'm glad I got to know a very important part of standard science these days, and I'm so pumped for Picture This next year. My sister and I are psychic.
Well, I'm pretty sure many of the teams that make it to Nats know about the sig figs they need by nowSciolapedia wrote:Also, I doubt that most of the teams remembered to use significant figures on part 2 when they were multiplying and dividing numbers.
They put out rulers when we were supposed to estimate.John Richardsim wrote:Don't worry, you'll always be a winner in my book. How did they mess up the test?GoofyFoofer wrote:In the SoCal state competition, the tester people messed up the test, so they didn't count that event in the awards. I was gonna win, too!
See, not as bad as our state, who put estimation and measurement on the same paperGoofyFoofer wrote:They put out rulers when we were supposed to estimate.John Richardsim wrote:Don't worry, you'll always be a winner in my book. How did they mess up the test?GoofyFoofer wrote:In the SoCal state competition, the tester people messed up the test, so they didn't count that event in the awards. I was gonna win, too!
I may have already said this, but I'll say it again; our state used the customary system for some of them. That is the most blatant rule-breaking I have ever seen.awesome90220 wrote: See, not as bad as our state, who put estimation and measurement on the same paper
What!?!? How did they...who...how...why...Unome wrote:I may have already said this, but I'll say it again; our state used the customary system for some of them. That is the most blatant rule-breaking I have ever seen.awesome90220 wrote: See, not as bad as our state, who put estimation and measurement on the same paper
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
