Unome wrote:whythelongface wrote:_deltaV wrote:I thoroughly regained my respect for this event as a result of nationals. I've taken or looked through dozens of tests and the main recurring thing that really disappointed me was the same microscope and mitochondria/chloroplast diagram that we had to label, the same Gram stain questions we've all seen a million times. It got repetitive and I agree the quality of this event wasn't great with the exception of maybe MIT and Golden Gate. The Nationals test really turned things around. I love the symptom presentation questions where you have to identify the diseases, and the antibiotic inhibition diagram was something unique that wasn't on any other test i've seen. The bacterial growth questions with the chart, and the math questions were quality as well. I'm going to try writing the microbe test for the Cornell invitational next year so hopefully a better test gets out there
Well, in my opinion the Ivy Invitational tests were at least somewhat quality (MIT, Princeton, UPenn). The only one I've taken that I was thoroughly disappointed by was the Yale test, which was so unbelievably straightforward (they treated it as a station event).
For some reason, I could never get most invitationals math, but I understood Nat math just fine. Split between celebrating this fact and whining for better problems.
Ha yeah, the Yale test was a joke. I did it as practice and finished solo in 20 minutes (only scored equivalent to like 6th or something though ).
That's the issue with these lower-quality tests, everyone scores really high and whoever doesn't make some small mistake takes the cake.