National Test Discussion

User avatar
Adi1008
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 473
Joined: December 6th, 2013, 1:56 pm
Division: Grad
State: TX
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: National Test Discussion

Postby Adi1008 » June 7th, 2016, 12:40 pm

Crave the Wave (8th):
Amazing test, and this is even with my almost-medaled-but-didn't bias; probably the most difficult I've ever seen for any event in any test. The test was split into 10 stations of 4 minutes 30 seconds each, and while this seems easy it actually put tons of time pressure on us. The test, even without this time pressure, was really hard (even made the first, supposedly easiest station difficult with the last question); it tested things like non-standard P and S wave calculations, parabolic mirrors, Doppler shift and emission spectra, and radioactive decay. Lots of math and application, again a thing I think is really good for a Crave test. TBH it seems like a test I would want to write myself, and I'm still pretty disappointed in not getting that medal; regardless, congrats to Longfellow for getting 1st (which is what I predicted on the prediction contest lol).
I also wanted to note the kind of weird similarity between this test and the Boyceville Crave test (both 10 big questions, and very difficult for the level of competition, and both had the steel bar Young's modulus thing. Even the same cover sheet).
I think CtW at nationals is run by the same person at Boyceville, Dr. Andy Hamm. From what I've heard about the test, it sounds like it was made a lot harder this year, which is actually super awesome xD. One of my complaints last year was content of the test was easy**, but now it looks like the test was both super fast paced and super hard, which is actually super cool. Lowkey wish I could have taken this test even though I'm in C now, and looking forward to seeing it on the nats tests CD next year!!!!

**the test was still hard, but that was mostly because of the time crunch as opposed to the content of the test, which was relatively basic
University of Texas at Austin '22
Seven Lakes High School '18
Beckendorff Junior High '14

User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4107
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse

Re: National Test Discussion

Postby Unome » June 7th, 2016, 12:49 pm

Crave the Wave (8th):
Amazing test, and this is even with my almost-medaled-but-didn't bias; probably the most difficult I've ever seen for any event in any test. The test was split into 10 stations of 4 minutes 30 seconds each, and while this seems easy it actually put tons of time pressure on us. The test, even without this time pressure, was really hard (even made the first, supposedly easiest station difficult with the last question); it tested things like non-standard P and S wave calculations, parabolic mirrors, Doppler shift and emission spectra, and radioactive decay. Lots of math and application, again a thing I think is really good for a Crave test. TBH it seems like a test I would want to write myself, and I'm still pretty disappointed in not getting that medal; regardless, congrats to Longfellow for getting 1st (which is what I predicted on the prediction contest lol).
I also wanted to note the kind of weird similarity between this test and the Boyceville Crave test (both 10 big questions, and very difficult for the level of competition, and both had the steel bar Young's modulus thing. Even the same cover sheet).
I think CtW at nationals is run by the same person at Boyceville, Dr. Andy Hamm. From what I've heard about the test, it sounds like it was made a lot harder this year, which is actually super awesome xD. One of my complaints last year was content of the test was easy**, but now it looks like the test was both super fast paced and super hard, which is actually super cool. Lowkey wish I could have taken this test even though I'm in C now, and looking forward to seeing it on the nats tests CD next year!!!!

**the test was still hard, but that was mostly because of the time crunch as opposed to the content of the test, which was relatively basic
If I remember correctly, Andy Hamm didn't run it this year (not certain though).
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

User avatar
rfscoach
Coach
Coach
Posts: 591
Joined: July 7th, 2008, 4:58 pm
Division: B
State: GA

Re: National Test Discussion

Postby rfscoach » June 7th, 2016, 2:09 pm

Crave the Wave (8th):
Amazing test, and this is even with my almost-medaled-but-didn't bias; probably the most difficult I've ever seen for any event in any test. The test was split into 10 stations of 4 minutes 30 seconds each, and while this seems easy it actually put tons of time pressure on us. The test, even without this time pressure, was really hard (even made the first, supposedly easiest station difficult with the last question); it tested things like non-standard P and S wave calculations, parabolic mirrors, Doppler shift and emission spectra, and radioactive decay. Lots of math and application, again a thing I think is really good for a Crave test. TBH it seems like a test I would want to write myself, and I'm still pretty disappointed in not getting that medal; regardless, congrats to Longfellow for getting 1st (which is what I predicted on the prediction contest lol).
I also wanted to note the kind of weird similarity between this test and the Boyceville Crave test (both 10 big questions, and very difficult for the level of competition, and both had the steel bar Young's modulus thing. Even the same cover sheet).
I think CtW at nationals is run by the same person at Boyceville, Dr. Andy Hamm. From what I've heard about the test, it sounds like it was made a lot harder this year, which is actually super awesome xD. One of my complaints last year was content of the test was easy**, but now it looks like the test was both super fast paced and super hard, which is actually super cool. Lowkey wish I could have taken this test even though I'm in C now, and looking forward to seeing it on the nats tests CD next year!!!!

**the test was still hard, but that was mostly because of the time crunch as opposed to the content of the test, which was relatively basic
If I remember correctly, Andy Hamm didn't run it this year (not certain though).
Unome is correct. The National Event Supervisor this year was Alan Scott from UW-Stout.
I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.

User avatar
pikachu4919
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 671
Joined: December 7th, 2012, 2:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: IN
Location: West [Favorite Fightin' Frenchman!]

Re: National Test Discussion

Postby pikachu4919 » June 7th, 2016, 6:20 pm

Forensics (4th) - well, I guess it's just the same ol' Woz test. The presence of new questions that weren't recycled from previous tests is good tho. Still not a fan of the five HUGE toothpicks that we were given do all of the juice/paint chromatography with. One, there weren't even enough ends for all those samples (six juice, 5 paint, and only ten ends). Two, since one end was flat, I ended up spotting too much when using that end which irritated me a lot bc my dots ended up super huge. Could be my clumsiness too, but it did annoy me. Also, is her thing for not giving credit for answers for Rf values unless proper work is shown relatively new? She supervises our state and I've taken tests she's written at least ten times yet I never saw those instructions until I got to this year's Nationals. Granted, my partner and I still placed 4th, but it was interesting to see that added in. I guess it's probably for the better tho bc most teams have caught on to her style of testing by now.

Protein Modeling (10th) - My partners and I thought the exam and onsite were actually surprisingly easy compared to what we thought we would get based on the specificity of the questions over the FOK1 on the previous nationals exam. The onsite model was literally only 100 residues, which is basically nothing compared to what it could've been, and the exam was all information covered in either not-so-difficult biochemistry of proteins or the basic information for the theme about Beery Twin history.

Dynamic Planet (29th) - Granted, I did this event for the first time at nats due to gnarly team member conflicts (I was actually extremely frustrated over not getting to do Cell Biology bc it conflicted with Forensics), but ...what was that. Lol I mean I think I probably would've found it to be easier if I had gotten more competition experience in it but it was unusually short and some of the questions were pretty weird. Plus some of the pictures didn't print well and were hard to read.
Carmel HS (IN) '16
Purdue BiolE '20
Nationals 2016 ~ 4th place Forensics


Not throwin' away my shot!
MY CABBAGES!

pikachu4919's Userpage

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

Rate my tests!

User avatar
Adi1008
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 473
Joined: December 6th, 2013, 1:56 pm
Division: Grad
State: TX
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: National Test Discussion

Postby Adi1008 » June 7th, 2016, 6:30 pm


I think CtW at nationals is run by the same person at Boyceville, Dr. Andy Hamm. From what I've heard about the test, it sounds like it was made a lot harder this year, which is actually super awesome xD. One of my complaints last year was content of the test was easy**, but now it looks like the test was both super fast paced and super hard, which is actually super cool. Lowkey wish I could have taken this test even though I'm in C now, and looking forward to seeing it on the nats tests CD next year!!!!

**the test was still hard, but that was mostly because of the time crunch as opposed to the content of the test, which was relatively basic
If I remember correctly, Andy Hamm didn't run it this year (not certain though).
Unome is correct. The National Event Supervisor this year was Alan Scott from UW-Stout.
Guess I was completely wrong then. UW-Stout is pretty close to Boyceville (only about 20 minutes away iirc), so maybe the proctor was the same at both tournaments, explaining the similarity in the tests. Thanks for the information :)

Either way, I'm glad the test was a lot harder, taking it is going to be a ton of fun :P
University of Texas at Austin '22
Seven Lakes High School '18
Beckendorff Junior High '14

User avatar
JoJoKeKe
Member
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: April 27th, 2015, 6:29 pm
Division: C
State: ID

Re: National Test Discussion

Postby JoJoKeKe » June 7th, 2016, 8:18 pm

Does anyone who participated in fossils remember the speed ID station? My partner and I made the mistake of starting on that station. 0_0

Not sure if anyone would remember, but do you know what you put down for the two 10 point questions? I believe one was a shell of some sort, and the other was the thorax of a trilobite (I think).
Tournaments (2016): State / Nationals
Fossils: 3 / 8
Disease: 7 / NA
Green Gen: NA / 37
Picture This: 1 / 17
Invasives: 1 / 24

Idaho State (2017):
Rocks - 2
Microbe 2
Ecology 3
Optics 4
Invasives: 1

Events 2019: Herpetology, Fossils, Dynamic Planet, Fermi Questions

sciolycoach
Coach
Coach
Posts: 35
Joined: July 21st, 2008, 1:37 pm
Division: Grad
State: WI

Re: National Test Discussion

Postby sciolycoach » June 8th, 2016, 9:05 am

First, let me correct you...it is just Andy Hamm, no Dr....I am just a high school math and science teacher who teaches everything from Physical Science for freshmen to General Chemistry, Pre-Calculus, and AP Chemistry, Physics 1, and Calculus, as well as whatever else administration wants me to teach...in a small district teachers wear many hats :)

You are right with your discussions, Dr. Alan Scott was the Crave the Wave event supervisor...and he did a great job! When I was informed in the fall that Dr. Alan Scott was going to supervise Crave the Wave at nationals, I was excited as Dr. Scott is a leader in the area, is highly qualified, and has been an outstanding event supervisor for many different events in Wisconsin over the years. I extended an invite to Dr. Scott to supervise Crave the Wave at our invitational in December to get a chance to try out some things, test out a few questions/stations, and evaluate student competency level, and he accepted, and it helped that our invite was very strong with Daniel Wright, Chippewa, and Ames in attendance, along with several other strong teams from area states as far away as Indiana (Wilbur Wright MS). He also had the chance to supervise Crave the Wave at the WI state tournament, so nationals was his third tournament with these rules.

It was a good thing I didn't sign on to help or run an event, as I played the "utility infielder" role when the supervisor for Div B Write It, Do It had a scheduling conflict at the last minute and I handled that event, getting assigned on the Tuesday before nationals. I had a GREAT team, including a Boyceville alum (and current UW-Madison student) and her mother as well as several very qualified individuals from Menomonie, which allowed us to pull it off despite the short notice. The score distribution was impressive, ranging from 20 - 151 out of 170 points. Please don't ask for specific scores as I do not have access to that data as everything was turned in at scoring. I did submit the rubric, item inventory, and several pictures for the CD next fall though. There were some GREAT devices and scores at the top were relatively close, and the kids who competed were outstanding! As always, I was extremely impressed with the professionalism, excitement, creativity, and appreciation for Science Olympiad shown by all competitors...and again, as always, the vote for the spirit award was extremely difficult, which is a testament to all competitors!

Congratulations to everyone for a great national tournament and congratulations to UW-Stout for a GREAT tournament experience for all! The excitement in the STEM expo area outside on the mall area was impressive and inspiring during the week!

Have a great off-season/summer vacation and hope to see many of you at our invitational in Boyceville on Saturday, December 3, 2016!
Andy Hamm
Boyceville Science Olympiad
Boyceville, WI

User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4107
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse

Re: National Test Discussion

Postby Unome » June 8th, 2016, 9:10 am

First, let me correct you...it is just Andy Hamm, no Dr....I am just a high school math and science teacher who teaches everything from Physical Science for freshmen to General Chemistry, Pre-Calculus, and AP Chemistry, Physics 1, and Calculus, as well as whatever else administration wants me to teach...in a small district teachers wear many hats :)
One thing I've always wondered; if Boyceville HS only has a few hundred students (or so I've heard) how do you manage to fit 100+ teams in the building for the invitational?
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

rycelee
Member
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: April 13th, 2016, 6:35 pm
Division: C
State: PA

Re: National Test Discussion

Postby rycelee » June 9th, 2016, 9:30 am

Hey Chalker,

Can you tell me the difference between 3rd place and 1st place in Green Generation Division C? And the difference between 5th and 1st in Hydrogeology C?

Thank you so much!

ampy1234567
Member
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: March 31st, 2015, 6:11 pm
Division: C
State: MN

Re: National Test Discussion

Postby ampy1234567 » June 9th, 2016, 1:47 pm


You are right with your discussions, Dr. Alan Scott was the Crave the Wave event supervisor...and he did a great job! When I was informed in the fall that Dr. Alan Scott was going to supervise Crave the Wave at nationals, I was excited as Dr. Scott is a leader in the area, is highly qualified, and has been an outstanding event supervisor for many different events in Wisconsin over the years. I extended an invite to Dr. Scott to supervise Crave the Wave at our invitational in December to get a chance to try out some things, test out a few questions/stations, and evaluate student competency level, and he accepted, and it helped that our invite was very strong with Daniel Wright, Chippewa, and Ames in attendance, along with several other strong teams from area states as far away as Indiana (Wilbur Wright MS). He also had the chance to supervise Crave the Wave at the WI state tournament, so nationals was his third tournament with these rules.
Please give him my thanks. I was personally thought the test would be something relatively easy compared to the likes of the Solon and WSU invites I'd taken, but that test blew those expectations far out of the water. Hopefully Optics at nationals in 2017 will be similar (I still need redemption for that 8th, lol).
Mounds View High School, 10th grade

2016 Nationals: Dynamic (2), Disease (6), Crave (8), Fossils (22)
2017 Nationals: Disease (1), Dynamic (2), Optics (5)


Return to “2016 Nationals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest