Page 8 of 9

Re: Metric Mastery B

Posted: May 20th, 2014, 6:25 pm
by Bazinga+
awesome90220 wrote:
Voltage wrote:
Bazinga+ wrote:did anyone else find the nationals metric event ridiculous? i mean they made you estimate the temperature of water TWICE and the results were DIFFERENT! Like thats ridiculous cuz the temp changes... and there were some other really dumb stations. Also the lego thing with '20' on it had more blocks on it for the measurement portion than on the estimation part.
I didn't find the event extremely ridiculous. It wasn't as hard as expected (the previous Metric Mastery person said something about way too many estimations per station and everyone bombing the event last year). I didn't notice that one lego block had more legos than the other, though it is plausible that such a mistake occurred. I do find the thing about the water slightly over the top. (How do they get the water in the estimation and measurement room to be the same? Doesn't the temperature of the water change over the course of the day?).
I don't know if this clashes with some of the rules, but can't there just be different precise answers for both measurement and estimation?
i dont believe so.... but my point waas the metric event wasnt what anyone expected, and it wsnt exactly the best event in the world. But i must admit it was well organized (with them taking you to different rooms and not letting you start estimating and measuring until they say go)

Re: Metric Mastery B

Posted: May 20th, 2014, 8:05 pm
by John Richardsim
Bazinga+ wrote:did anyone else find the nationals metric event ridiculous? i mean they made you estimate the temperature of water TWICE and the results were DIFFERENT! Like thats ridiculous cuz the temp changes... and there were some other really dumb stations. Also the lego thing with '20' on it had more blocks on it for the measurement portion than on the estimation part.
No, as a matter of fact, I found the test to be quite fair. My state director for metrics made us stand in the room and estimate the length of a dumpster outside by looking through a window. Seems fair, right? WRONG! Because for the measurement portion we were just given the information that a piece of tape on the dumpster was 50 centimeters long and from there we had to look out the window and "measure" the length of it. also, we were given a piece of frayed yarn (and a ruler) to measure the circumference of a metal rod that was so skinny that I had to have my partner measure it because my hands were way too big. And yes, he did have a temperature thrown in there. Also, with the measurement part for nationals, we only had to measure one thing for densities and the other measurement was given to us.

Re: Metric Mastery B

Posted: May 20th, 2014, 9:41 pm
by GoofyFoofer
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! :(

Re: Metric Mastery B

Posted: May 20th, 2014, 9:55 pm
by John Richardsim
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! :(
Don't worry, you'll always be a winner in my book. How did they mess up the test?

Re: Metric Mastery B

Posted: May 21st, 2014, 6:46 pm
by awesome90220
Honestly, I'm just ready for Picture This :D

Re: Metric Mastery B

Posted: May 23rd, 2014, 12:04 pm
by knittingfrenzy18
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. :D

Re: Metric Mastery B

Posted: May 25th, 2014, 7:36 pm
by awesome90220
knittingfrenzy18 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. :D
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 points

Re: Metric Mastery B

Posted: May 26th, 2014, 9:10 am
by ckssv07
awesome90220 wrote:
knittingfrenzy18 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. :D
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 points
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.

Re: Metric Mastery B

Posted: May 26th, 2014, 1:53 pm
by Sciolapedia
Also, I doubt that most of the teams remembered to use significant figures on part 2 when they were multiplying and dividing numbers. ;)

Re: Metric Mastery B

Posted: May 27th, 2014, 11:45 am
by awesome90220
Sciolapedia wrote:Also, I doubt that most of the teams remembered to use significant figures on part 2 when they were multiplying and dividing numbers. ;)
Well, I'm pretty sure many of the teams that make it to Nats know about the sig figs they need by now ;)