National test discussion

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2090
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

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: 2090
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

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: 592
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: 24
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?

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2090
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

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
Wiki Moderator
Wiki Moderator
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 1 guest