National test discussion

bernard
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 1979
Joined: January 5th, 2014, 3:12 pm
Division: Grad
State: WA
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: National test discussion

Postby bernard » May 19th, 2015, 4:55 pm

I think everyone should not be literally asking Chalker for every single score available. Alright, if the nats people all decide to release it it's on them :P. But honestly, it is not, and should not be, essential to see the scores for everything (even builds). Sure, some people like it for motivation, but please try to be reasonable when asking Chalker stuff, as we all know he's a busy man ;). Just keep to the discussions of what the tests were like please :P.
Made some edits to syo_astro's post...
"One of the ways that I believe people express their appreciation to the rest of humanity is to make something wonderful and put it out there."

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2089
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: National test discussion

Postby chalker » May 19th, 2015, 5:12 pm

If you want the complete raw scores, get the National test cd when it's available in the store in the fall. I'm happy to piecemeal out a few here and there, primarily for events in my committee (which I have), but I'm not going to continue to do that for all the events... it does take a bit of time for me to dig them up, which starts to add up when there are lots of requests.

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

sam123
Member
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: May 19th, 2015, 6:44 pm
State: -

Re: National test discussion

Postby sam123 » May 19th, 2015, 6:54 pm

Hi Chalker,
I hate to ask you this but I have to. ....can you please post some statistics (mean, mode, range) on the Simple Machines test. I was bit disappointed on the test being very easy and not testing real in depth of the material.

jonpao523
Member
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: June 20th, 2013, 9:57 am
Division: Grad
State: PA

Re: National test discussion

Postby jonpao523 » May 19th, 2015, 7:04 pm

Astronomy (1): This is my favorite event, so perhaps I'm biased, but this was my favorite test from nationals. The physics section could have been a little harder, but that's not to say that the test wasn't hard enough. I can't speak for the DSO questions - that's my partner's job - but I'm sure they were fantastic questions too. Overall, definitely an A for this event.

Compound Machines (8): The test was super easy; guessing from what I normally score on the build section and the top 6 scores posted by chalker, I doubt I lost more than 2 points on it. My partner and I finished the entire thing in ~12 minutes and turned it in with 20 minutes left in the set. After a while, my partner started timing other teams on the build section to see how our competition was doing :P. It all came down to the build section for the top teams. While an easy test is certainly disappointing, I honestly can't say that the rules for this event ask for a much more difficult test. The build section was run fairly well, except for one instance where the proctor walked away from a team in the middle of their run and wasn't there to stop their time. Overall, I'd give this a B.

Chemistry Lab (22): I have to agree with some other people's thoughts on this event; the test was on the whole unsatisfactory. It came down to who could plug and chug numbers fast enough, and who could execute simple lab procedure and in a crazy short amount of time. There was little critical thinking and little advanced chemistry. I feel as though a nationals test should, instead of being a lot of mundane questions, be very high level questions that push competitors to learn beyond what they learn in school and advanced labs that require knowledgeable and precise lab procedure. Additionally, I believe that some of the stoich was copied straight from last year's test! It's always frustrating to see recycled tests, especially at nationals. Overall, I'd give this event a D.

It's About Time (8): Absolutely loved the test! I though the focus on physics was great because it avoided so-called "derpy" questions, which I feel detract from the integrity of this event. The timekeeping questions were also good and helped sort out teams who hadn't studied/didn't have a good binder, but weren't exceedingly obscure. More questions on calendars would have been cool, but that's just another facet the event proctors could have focused on but chose not to. Overall, definitely an A.

TPS (25): The good news on this event was that it followed the spirit of the rules well and the test was well-written. The downside, as mentioned before, was that it was essentially a repurposing of the ti case files and that the lab materials were somewhat sketchy. Personally, I couldn't get data for the colorimeter part that made much sense, and I wonder if that had something to do with that. Overall, I think this event was a B. On a side note, does anybody who placed well in this event remember what they got for their final results? We got a rather short suspect at 5'4" and a very quick death of 7.5 minutes. I suspect the latter value wasn't even close.
Harriton '16, Penn '20

Physics Chair, Science Olympiad at UPenn
Astronomy Event Supervisor, New York State Science Olympiad
Astronomy Event Assistant, National Science Olympiad

liberalartslover
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: April 25th, 2015, 1:18 am
Division: C
State: CA

Re: National test discussion

Postby liberalartslover » May 19th, 2015, 10:02 pm

Dynamic Planet (4)
I wasn't too pleased with this test. I think the guy that wrote it underestimated just how in depth we all studied for it and made the test was ridiculously basic. While there weren't bad questions, they just weren't nationals level. If the questions aren't going to be difficult, at least make a bunch of them so that there's some sort of way to differentiate the top teams. Instead, there were 12 MC questions at one station... in 11 minutes. Not even close to the kind of quality/difficulty I was expecting at nationals. I felt the test turned into who made the least number of mistakes rather than who actually understood oceanography the best. Yes, if it's so easy you shouldn't make stupid mistakes. But I also feel that there should be more difficult content to really separate the best teams.

3/10 (The buoyancy section was awesome)

Geologic Mapping (6)
This was more like what I was expecting from a nationals level test. My partner and I split it up and worked individually for the entire time, and still probably left 30% at least blank. The problems were a wide variety of difficulties as well as an impossible amount of questions. I doubt anybody finished, and that's okay because it's nationals and you shouldn't be getting 100% on the test. Instead, the best team will answer the most questions and will win. The hands-on maps were a great touch, and the problems were extremely well-written. I really hope the same person proctors next year, but I also hope there are some more mathematical calculation problems with strike/dip etc. rather than just the straight map analysis.

10/10

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2089
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: National test discussion

Postby chalker » May 20th, 2015, 6:22 am

Hi Chalker,
I hate to ask you this but I have to. ....can you please post some statistics (mean, mode, range) on the Simple Machines test. I was bit disappointed on the test being very easy and not testing real in depth of the material.
Range: 18-50
Mean 39.88

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

sam123
Member
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: May 19th, 2015, 6:44 pm
State: -

Re: National test discussion

Postby sam123 » May 20th, 2015, 6:49 am

Hi Chalker,
I hate to ask you this but I have to. ....can you please post some statistics (mean, mode, range) on the Simple Machines test. I was bit disappointed on the test being very easy and not testing real in depth of the material.


Range: 18-50
Mean 39.88
****************************************************************************************

Hi Chalker, the above values are for the test or for the device testing. Can you please provide overall score values?

Thanks.

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2089
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: National test discussion

Postby chalker » May 20th, 2015, 9:06 am

Hi Chalker, the above values are for the test or for the device testing. Can you please provide overall score values?
They are for the test, just like you asked. Not sure what you mean by overall values.

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

awesome90220
Member
Member
Posts: 158
Joined: March 10th, 2012, 5:19 pm
Division: B
State: AL
Location: somewhere on this cruel, harsh planet

Re: National test discussion

Postby awesome90220 » May 20th, 2015, 9:48 am

Chalker, do you know the top 10 results from Road Scholar? I just want to know how far off I was from getting a medal...

Thanks!
2016 Season: BISOT/Reg/State/Nats
Wind Power:9/1/1/11
Experimental Design:5/1/1/16
It's About Time:-/1/1/20

sam123
Member
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: May 19th, 2015, 6:44 pm
State: -

Re: National test discussion

Postby sam123 » May 20th, 2015, 9:50 am

Hi Chalker,
My mistake then, the event has two parts, 1st part is test and the 2nd part is device part. Each contribute 50 points, I was also checking on the device part as well.

Please provide it if you can. Thanks.

syo_astro
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 591
Joined: December 3rd, 2011, 9:45 pm
Division: Grad
State: NY
Contact:

Re: National test discussion

Postby syo_astro » May 20th, 2015, 9:56 am

Chalker, do you know the top 10 results from Road Scholar? I just want to know how far off I was from getting a medal...

Thanks!
I guess simple machines is in his committee (physics), so that wouldn't be as hard, but Road Scholar is not. Chalker was putting it a bit nicely, and people here obsessing over what score they got don't seem to get the point that IT IS UNIMPORTANT TO SEE THE SCORE YOU GOT in reality. Again, Chalker is busy and has a job, please consider that.

ALSO, THERE IS A SEPARATE DISCUSSION FOR ASKING ABOUT RAW SCORES IN THE FIRST PLACE (http://scioly.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=196&t=6962). Please use the topics posted appropriately, and use this forum for discussing the national test, which would likely act as a better use of time (unless you don't want to, in which case that's up to you).
Last edited by syo_astro on May 20th, 2015, 9:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
B: Crave the Wave, Environmental Chemistry, Robo-Cross, Meteorology, Physical Science Lab, Solar System, DyPlan (E and V), Shock Value
C: Microbe Mission, DyPlan (Earth's Fresh Waters), Fermi Questions, GeoMaps, Gravity Vehicle, Scrambler, Rocks, Astronomy
Grad: Writing Tests/Supervising (NY/MI)

User avatar
Techsam
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 22
Joined: February 27th, 2015, 9:55 am
Division: Grad
State: PA

Re: National test discussion

Postby Techsam » May 20th, 2015, 9:57 am

I think everyone should not be literally asking Chalker for every single score available. Alright, if the nats people all decide to release it it's on them :P. But honestly, it is not, and should not be, essential to see the scores for everything (even builds). Sure, some people like it for motivation, but please try to be reasonable when asking Chalker stuff, as we all know he's a busy man ;). Just keep to the discussions of what the tests were like please :P.

Made some edits to syo_astro
's post...
Made some more edits?
2015 Events: Astronomy, Bungee Drop, Compound Machines, It's About Time, Technical Problem Solving

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2089
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: National test discussion

Postby chalker » May 20th, 2015, 10:20 am

Hi Chalker,
My mistake then, the event has two parts, 1st part is test and the 2nd part is device part. Each contribute 50 points, I was also checking on the device part as well.

Please provide it if you can. Thanks.

That's not as easy for me to extract from the data I have.

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

icanteven
Member
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: April 26th, 2015, 4:02 pm
State: -

Re: National test discussion

Postby icanteven » May 20th, 2015, 11:53 am

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.

2/5
Yeah the anatomy test(div B) was udder trash. Poorly organized and just copied from another test. I'm pretty sure the EC(two teenagers) have never done anatomy before, have never read the rules sheet, and found their test the day before the competition. Along with the errors that Unome stated above, they had 0 diagrams that you had to label and they took 1/8th of topics depicted the rules sheet and got soo specific with them. The other 7/8ths of the rules sheet weren't even mentioned.

Meteorology was great though. As long as you studied everything on the rules sheet thoroughly, it was pretty easy. I liked how they had a survey at the end which asked questions such as: the difficulty of the test, too many, too little or just the right amount of questions, and any comments that you had.

User avatar
John Richardsim
WikiMod
WikiMod
Posts: 730
Joined: February 26th, 2014, 10:54 am
Division: Grad
State: MI
Location: Robinson Twp.

Re: National test discussion

Postby John Richardsim » May 20th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Meteorology was great though. As long as you studied everything on the rules sheet thoroughly, it was pretty easy. I liked how they had a survey at the end which asked questions such as: the difficulty of the test, too many, too little or just the right amount of questions, and any comments that you had.
I disagree; easy tests are never good. It may have did a decent job of covering most of the topics in the rules, but the complexity of the majority of the questions were about what someone should expect from an invitational or regional test. I don't know how many total points there was on that test, but I do remember there being less than 70 questions (which is nothing when considering the general rule of thumb for the lengths of tests (twice as many points as the number of teams at that competition)).
Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice


Return to “2015 Nationals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests