Hey Chalker, I'm unsure if you even have access to this or the ability to disclose this, but what was the point distribution among the top 6 astronomy teams?Looking at the raw scores I have, only 8 teams aced that test, and several teams in the top 10 did NOT ace it. The low score was 18 points, and the average 40. So yes, it might have been a little easy, but by no means a slam dunk..... Probably all of the top 30 teams and some others aced the test, and thus the top teams were those who spent the most time with their beam......
Sorry in advance for the double post, but I must thank you again for your awesome test writing! I thought the questions you wrote were quite solid, but I would've liked to see a less obvious answer to the SED problem. When one the questions was "which circumstellar disk is seen in the SED," followed up with "what circumstellar disk does the disk in part (b) evolve into," it can be quite obvious, as the order is always protoplanetary -> debris. Personally, I wouldn't have known known for sure the answer to that question if it weren't for the followup. In terms of the Herbig questions, I thought they were all great! Regarding your last statement about ties, do you happen to know the point values of the top teams? I'm curious to see how close we were to getting those top 3 medals!Haha, few questions came from me (I am mostly a checker, and I am still working on my question style). The questions that were most directly mine were on the Herbig Ae/Be star thing on Part A, and the spectral energy distribution question on Part C (I say most directly because it got edited a ton by the sups mutually). I was trying to come up with that blackbody curve question on Part C and trying to come up with a question that would show various effects of transit light curves like on Part A, but Tad (I believe) pulled those together faster than I could (though, I did try to throw some ideas over about that). I actually had a bunch of other questions in mind...perhaps if they let me you will get a few tough things from me .
Also noting off what chalker said. Often at most scores may be close (eg. literally always there's a dang tie), but almost never do people get a 100 on the test. I attribute this mostly because the test really could be anything, and even if you finish, if you hand it in early, don't check the right thing, don't write the right thing, then those all lead to EXTREMELY easy point loss.
Well dang! Thought I caught the loophole in your question, but I guess I was wrong! Maybe that's what separated me from top 3!I won't reveal how exactly just in case, but in the original question I actually made it longer and tried to make a few parts a fair bit more difficult. Donna/Tad do a good job balancing it out. Sadly not many people can appreciate (or know about...?) the beauty of SEDs! Also, if that was your assumption you're a bit off (right about debris disk...but if you mean just "protoplanetary" in this case). The disk I referred to was actually a transitional disk, which is a bit more specific than just "protoplanetary disk" (as there is the truly primordial full disk, the pre-transitional disk, and the transitional disk). Nice try . What made it really hard was that part b forced you to EXPLAIN why, which is an extremely simple but important aspect of the question/understanding surrounding what I wanted in that question.
I sadly don't know point values off the top of my head (didn't have time to get to NE, so I couldn't grade >.>), and I think I'll leave that up to Donna/Tad/Chalker to say.
Wait, in Bio, you only anwered 80% of the questions? My partner and I answered 89% of the test and got 14th. We probably did something wrong, but the test was a good test.Fossils: This was a very good test; there were 19 stations covering a broad range of material from the rules, good pacing so that to do well you had to be fast, and a variety of questions, from easyish to difficult, so that some stations we finished with some (~20 seconds) time left over, and others we didn't finish at all (as said above, dinosaurs )
Simple Machines: As said in the above post, this test was too easy. It required very superficial knowledge and basic calculations; we only had to reference the binder twice throughout the whole test, and finished early even after thoroughly checking it. Most likely we got 2-3 questions wrong, so as RontgensWallaby said above, the placings came down to how well teams did on the lever portion (which was the reason we managed to do well on easy tests at all; our lever method has been strong enough to score 45-48 out of 50 for even the most inexperienced competitors since last January). However, I would add that the rest of the event was run very well; the supervisors gave specific instructions for everything, so I never had to ask how to write the ratios, how many significant figures to use (or whether to use them at all), how to stop the lever portion timer, etc, which I would normally have to ask at most other competitions.
Bio-Process Lab: This was a superb test, directly to the rules (of course, since it was written by the Biology Rules Committee Chair), well paced, and very good difficulty (we only answered about 80% of the questions, yet we still got 4th). This shows exactly what a Bio-Process Lab test should be, since as most of you know, this event is rarely run well.
Meteorology: I'm not sure how a difficult Meteorology test should be written, so I'm not sure what to say, but my impression of the test was that it was too easy (although not necessarily for me, since that's one of my weaker events); it was the length of our state test, except with less multiple-choice, and no questions that I can remember were very difficult.
Anatomy: This test was a good example of how not to write (or more specifically, how to not write) a test. The test was the Division C Nebraska state test, printed out of order and recycled from an answer key. Most of the answers were blanked out, but badly, leaving much of the section for the Integumentary short answer questions too dark to write in; additionally, some answers were not blanked out, some questions were blanked out, and some questions referenced a diagram that did not exist, so the proctors said those would be thrown out. However, the end of the test was not printed, including half of a matching section, and for those questions which were missing the correct answers in the matching section, they just told us to "do our best," which to me appears to say that they graded that part.
Hey, I remember you from Disease. I expected it to be someone from SciOly.org, the test overall was pretty easy if you were experienced enough, but there were some questions that separated everyone from the top players.I competed in the following events on Saturday:
Disease Detectives (43rd)- I thought the test was good and hard, but I haven't done Disease long enough to make an extremely educated statement about it. It seemed to follow the topic and have logical questions. (I was the one who pointed out the typo on the multiple choice question that had A and C as the same thing)
Experimental (23rd)- Much easier than last year, but they didn't let us use the rubric this time (which, in my opinion, was a good thing).
Entomology (3rd)- The test was very easy, much too easy to be a National level test. There were no problems with the way the test was run or written, and it would have worked fine as a Regional or State test. I thought 5 minutes was way too long for a station with ~6 questions, especially when said questions were not particularly difficult. If a team did not know what an ootheca was or how to tell the difference between a male/female grasshopper and praying mantis, they could have placed significantly lower than other teams of very similar ability level. The specimens we got to see were nice (none were live though ) and in tact (not broken), which was a plus. Sadly, the last Ento test I will ever take
Dynamic Planet (27th)- I kind of zoned out for the whole time while taking this test, but it didn't seem to me like there were any big problems with it. Of course, since I didn't prepare for it as much as my other events, I am in no position to make a judgement about it. I was expecting to see more about topographic features, but it was overall an okay test.
Fossils (12th)- Great test, very well-run and well-written. I enjoyed taking it and felt adequately prepared for it. It was probably the test that I was most pleased with throughout the day.
EDIT- yep, it was 43rd
69.5Hey Chalker, I'm unsure if you even have access to this or the ability to disclose this, but what was the point distribution among the top 6 astronomy teams?
6th place got 96.48 total, 7th got 95.95. Both got exactly the same exam score and had virtually identical ratio and time scores.However, I think possibly one screw-up that we had in our device portion could have been what costed us a medal at nats, which is unfortunate.
I can't do everything;) Although I really love this event, we decided it's about time for me to let other people get experience running it;) I did review the test though and provide feedback that was incorporated into it.For the test portion, my partner and I walked into the event expecting Chalker to be the national proctor for this event (as he was the past two times that it was run), so we were a little surprised when we found out that it was a different proctor and test-writer this year.
Derpy?!?!?!?!?;) Some people get a kick out of those types of things, and while I admit I went overboard with them 2010, they didn't directly impact any of the questions or test content - it was window dressing on the test. Here are some example questions I just copied verbatim from that test for those of you who haven't see it:Glad that there weren't any derpy questions on the test, such as quotes or pop culture references.
Oh god the puns are real...we decided it's about time for me to let other people get experience running it;)
Some tests I've taken have these as actual questions. I've seen questions like "What species is Doctor Who" and "How many seasons has the Simpsons been running" on tests before.they didn't directly impact any of the questions or test content - it was window dressing on the test
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests