Nationals Event Discussion

[megrimlockawesom]

heard u got lucky tho

We did not. We have been consistently getting these type of distances during practices. But i didn’t expect us to place this high

Hi, I’d just like to remind you that this thread is not (necessarily) for you to vent about how you felt about your results. In case you haven’t noticed in most of the posts that have been already made, this thread is primarily for discussing how you felt about how the events were run, like what you felt was good about how it was run, and what you felt was iffy about how it was run. For example, in this case about BB, you could talk about how efficient or not impound was or how nice/scary the proctors/volunteers were or the quality of the setup.

Sorry, got a little off track and even a little Braggy, so I am really sorry about that. As for the ES, I met them at centerville, and they were both really nice so it was good to see them again.

[qlf9]

Fermi Questions (32):
Previous Fermi Questions tests I had taken at Invitationals and Regionals (and, to an extent, even States), usually focused on one certain topic, so if you didn't know much about it, you were pretty much screwed. I like how this Nationals test contained questions from many different topics. The questions themselves were also quite interesting, and although I didn't place as highly as I would have liked to, I found this test one of the more fun ones I've taken in my Science Olympiad career.

Game On (32):
I did not prepare for this event in advance much at all, since I wanted to focus on my other events, so I am perfectly happy with my place in this event. This was also my first time competing in Game On, since at my state competition, Code Analysis was held, so I have nothing to compare the Nationals test to. That being said, I thought that the event was very well-organized, with the flash drives being used for submitting the game files.

Rocks and Minerals (19):
I found this test to be relatively easy for a Nationals test, since the specimens were not very hard to identify and all the information the questions asked for could have been easily found. I do think this test could have been harder to better differentiate the top teams. Although I had to guess on a few questions due to poor time management on my part, I am definitely very happy with my place.

[Yellowtomato98]

Any thoughts on Division B dp?

[RestingDoll]

Hovercraft (10) It was alright. The test was on the easier side, with a couple of the fluids problems being the exception. The build however almost made me crap myself. I choked last year at nats and almost did the same thing again. There was an imperceptible bump or something just at the front of the track, and our hovercraft kept making donuts. After 4 tries I powered the fan to full and just let it run in order to get the mass score. Overall, the event was well run and well planned, with the exception of impound (see Adi's post for details). 8/10
Time of 6.54 seconds, 16 pennies.

WIDI (2) Huh. I definitely did not expect to do well after I walked out of the build room. The structure was not terribly hard, just difficult to build. The strings were difficult to maneuver (the end of mine kept fraying, and I tried for a good minute to fit the spring through it), the stuff underneath the cup kept falling over, and the protein clip wouldn't fit on my freaking tuber. In the end I gave up on the second string and called it time at 19:23. Definitely nationals level, and well worth all the time spent practicing. 10/10

MTV (3) Proctors were extremely nice and understanding. Nothing much more to be said. 10/10
Time of 7.82 seconds, 1.2 cm off target, total score of 10.22.

Mission Possible (21) I actually thought the proctors were very reasonable and understanding. Setup time could have been kept track of a little better. Unfortunately, 5 of our tasks skipped randomly, something which we'd never encountered before. 8/10

Overall, this was a perfect way to end my competing career in Science Olympiad. I'll be at Golden Gate volunteering for Division D next year.

[DarthBuilder]

MTV (51) overall this event was well runned. The supervisors did a good job while impounding and took two minutes to check in. It was also nice to meet Windu. The supervisors definitely knew what they were doing as I am pretty sure they were past competitors. Although, I wish we did better as our mtv did decent at state, but I must give all of my props to my partner who took time out of his day to make a new design. He kept testing consistently until the car was done and continued to do so until nationals. But what I can say is that I am going to come out much more prepared for mtv next year as this event was a learning experience and was an enjoyable event this season.
9/10

Towers (12) I enjoyed this event a lot. I loved how the ES called out our names and put our team’s name tag on the stand then called out our state. I was hoping to medal, but it is what it is. After, we had a run down of how our tower broke and why for 5 minutes or so some even longer which was awesome. Quite sad that this event is gone next year and I can say for a fact that this was my favorite event out of all 6 years doing Scioly. The next day, the ES sent me a video of our tower and I assume to all other teams of their tower which is pretty cool. As said earlier, I’m going to miss this event a lot.
10/10

[FermiGod]

Astronomy (6): Of all the astronomy tests I've ever taken, this was definitely the best. Astronomy is my favorite event, without a doubt and by many miles, and I only wish that I could have done better, both for me but also for my partner who worked so hard after joining Science Olympiad this year to master the DSOs. I only touched sections B and C, but both were theoretical with the, in my opinion, harder free response or derivation type questions than classic plug and chug of many astro tests. Admittedly, due to a combination of fatigue and lack of preparation in that regard, I did get tripped up on the binary orbits question and landed a flat 2/20. I had given up all hope of placing within the top 20, knowing that I had missed the last JS9 question and a few others, and could have tanked the team. My partner complained about the easy DSO section and lack of arxiv questions after the test, which could be taken as an area of improvement. I did the DSO section last year and agree that they can leave something to be desired. A few questions from research papers mixed in with the classic Donna questions could go a long way in making people feel good about their countless hours researching the objects. Especially because it is so common for one person to hyper focus on DSOs in this event, that section of the test could do with more theory and less ambiguity usually afforded to it by the HR diagram questions. In the end, we somehow medalled and did not tank our team, which was as much as a surprise as it was welcome. I can't wait for the galaxies test next year! 100/10

Hovercraft (2): From what I saw, the event supervisor checked all the boxes: the test could stratify teams, the tracks were well made, and the hovercraft's were run promptly almost as a "show," where the teams were announced to the room of wide-eyed spectators like gladiators or something awesome. I remember having to quell my own excitement after "New Trier" was declared to the crowd so that I could focus on avoiding the misfortunes of last year and making sound and precise decisions about my device's settings. The volunteer who was timing my run on Track 3 was knowledgeable and supportive, both before and after my successful runs, and his positivity was greatly welcomed as I was still recovering from the emotional hole of the Astronomy orbital problem (oops). After the device ran, the test went smoothly. My partner covered most of the elementary physics problems, and I focused my attention on the fluids and free response. We noticed that the event supervisor seemed to create a test that was a conglomeration from many different sources, as the value for gravity changed throughout the test (lol). Also, some of the sig figs felt ambiguous in the free response with the diagrams and different sig fig rules. I think I messed up when doing the fountain problem and it cost us the gold, but in end I'm very happy with our showing and thrilled with retiring this event on such a high note. 8/10
Details about my run: 16 pennies and a 15.72 run time with a 15s target time. 41.5/42 Build score.

Thermodynamics (2): The event was run flawlessly, period. A notoriously hard event to supervise well, being either awkward or unenjoyable at many major invitationals, the supervisors knew exactly what they were doing (using syringes) and made sure each team had the same starting conditions and time to take the test. The test, too, did not disappoint. The history questions actually tested the extent of my notes and had a little on everything. After 1-40, I jumped to the last free response and was confused by the thermal conductivity question (when SA was not given?) but otherwise found them as simple problems that should be accessible to all teams, but also I did not do many free response and my partner could have been destroying the hard ones while I did 1-40. In considering the ice bonus and my heat retention, I think it could have hurt the most competitive scores because the addition of ice (O degree @ 50ml) would almost instantly lower the starting temperature to around 40 when a 38 degree inner beaker was necessary to get over 15 points with the bonus. It also lowers the denominator in the prediction score and could end up increasing error if off by the same margin. I'm looking forward to this event next year! 10/10
Details about my run: 1.85 Heat retention factor (assuming ~15 Heat retention score) and 24.8 Prediction score. 39.8/40 Build score.

Mission Possible (4): After a season filled with bombs, errors, breaks, and mission greatly underperforming, including at state, everything finally came together for nationals and, other than a timer that went a little quickly at the high altitude and 1 broken task, our mission did as well as it could have. In terms of hours, I probably spent the most time on this event, working 2-3+ hours for the first few months after deciding to pick it up in early december until the mechanics of the device were working properly. My partner pulled through, too, in making 3 PCBs for the circuit based tasks, just in case the other two were to break (of which 1 did!). The event supervisor seemed cynical as he judged but he was also knowledgeable and understood the workings behind every task. 8/10
Details about my run: 1530 points, 96s timer.

Overall, nationals was an amazing experience, from the team hiking to the post astro reflections, and I know that both I and New Trier will come back stronger next year

Why no Fermii?! I thought the test was well runned imo.

Sorry if this was weird I usually just read but I was looking at results

[Ashernoel]

Why no Fermii?! I thought the test was well runned imo.

Sorry if this was weird I usually just read but I was looking at results

haha I'm not a fermi god and I have nothing to add to the event discussion

[Astronomylover26]

Solar System-(4) I personally thought the test was quite interesting. Since Solar System is my favorite event, I really enjoyed taking it, but it was a little challenging. The first part of the test was quite simple, with visual identifications and basic questions of planetary nomenclatures. The second part of the test was challenging since it required some analytic thinking and had a few graphs of celestial bodies. However, in the latter half of the test, some of the questions went out of the rules. Overall I would rate this test a 10/10.

Crime Busters-(2) This was one of the easiest national crime busters tests I have taken. The test was very well set up and instructions were clearly given. Event supervisors were very kind and helpful if you had any questions. The test had covered all of the parts including powders, metals, polymers, liquids, hair, fibers, shoe prints, and fingerprints. It had a moderate amount of testings given. Overall, I would give this test a 10/10.

Herpetology- (10) Herpetology was quite hard for the division B test. It was set up in stations and a decent amount of time was given for each station. It went quite deep into individual herps, such as information on frog calls and specific anatomical features. It was unlike most invitational tests, since it went quite deep into the actual concepts. It also included some confusing vocabulary as well. Overall, I would give this test a 7/10.

[IvanGe]

Anatomy and Physiology(18) I thought the test was well written, although me and my partner were definitely not prepared for the amount of case studies that they had. We kinda just guessed our way through the case studies due to the fact that some of the questions gave slight hints to the previous ones. Another thing that bothered me was the Select all that applied. This was challenging although it did make us think more, I believe we messed up most of those. 8/10

Hovercraft(20) It was the same proctor from last year, a very nice guy and there were a couple of new helpers this year. The track was fine but one of my batteries unfortunately stopped working (5000 maH) so I was left with trying to use a 3000maH battery to get my hovercraft to float. it didn't work out so well so I ended up with around 7.7 seconds and 9 rolls . The test was on the easier side, about the same level as last years test. There wasn't any hard questions that stuck out. 9/10

Potions and Poisons(21) It was a nice test and the lab was the part that messed us up. First of all, my partner went in with shorts so he had to go borrow a teammates pants so that was off to a bad start. I barely finished the test, missed maybe the last 2 questions and my partner did the lab. The goal was 1:2980 and we got like 1:9770 and that was partially my fault because we made a solution at first that was much darker and I wasn't sure if that was right so I had him make another one that looked lighter. I'm happy with my place with practically no points on the lab because we were off by so much. 7/10

Roller Coaster(7) Probably my favorite event to work on, although I got bored of it near Nationals, but I had hopes of it placing because I was getting scores >500 but when we moved it there the jumps didn't work out so the ball kept falling and destroyed my timing device. I eventually fixed the jumps with my partner and we got 8 seconds out of the target 41 seconds which set us back a lot of points. 10/10

[wzhang5460]

Disease Detectives (14) It was a fine test, however, I feel like it was incredibly long compared to previous year's nationals tests. The case was completely out of topic though, as plague has no relationship to foodborne illness. 7/10, it was long, challenging, and VERY off-topic.

Towers (10) Thought we were going to place. However, because of the suspected slanted table, our extremely light tower(around 4 g) started bending outwards near the bottom trusses and broke very early. Dale punched a tree and broke his hand after. 2/10. The testing device, although not stated in the rules, is expected to be a level surface, and at this level of nationals competition, I was disappointed it wasn't.

Exp. Design (10) Great proctor, same as last year. She was extremely funny and the event was very well run. Great topic and got us thinking. Got the same placing as last year.9/10

Mystery Architecture (7) RIP 7th. The event was well run considering the terrible experience I had in this event at NY states. Rules were explained very clearly and everything was done in order. 9/10