Nationals Event Discussion

User avatar
windu34
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1288
Joined: April 19th, 2015, 6:37 pm
Division: Grad
State: FL
Location: Gainesville, Florida

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby windu34 » May 21st, 2018, 9:37 pm

Tom_MS wrote:Optics (10): 6/10. The laser shoot here was perfectly good. In fact, they carried it out better than almost any other competition I've been to. For once, I have no qualms with the laser shoot. The test was kind of meh. They had put the questions in a blue folder in sheet protectors, with strict instructions not to write on it. This would have been fine, but the sheet protectors were bound in the same order, so it was hard to efficiently split up the test or review your partner's answers. I found the test quite odd compared to last year. It was of course written by different test writers than last year, and you could tell. The first two thirds consisted of a mix of easy multiple choice, weird ray tracing, and an oddly worded question about floor mirrors (if you took it, you know what I mean). The last third consisted of out of place trivia questions and really easy absorption and reflection spectra questions. So essentially, the differentiating factor for top teams was probably the laser shoot and the weird ray tracing.
Now, only read this rant if you actually do optics. Ray tracing is normal. You always expect ray tracing. Maybe even two lens system ray tracing. Maybe even lens and mirror ray tracing (I've only seen it a couple times). But this seemed like poorly designed ray tracing. First of all, there was a disproportionate emphasis on it. About 4 questions required that you do it, and if I'm remembering correctly, 3 were 2-lens systems. Second of all, the answers were weird. According to ray tracing as well as math (unless we were doing both wrong, which is possible), some of the final images ended up inside lenses in the system. A correction had to be made as to the positioning of focal points in a diagram because their positioning was asymmetric. The final image ended up right next the intermediate image of some systems, making ray tracing messy and difficult. Maybe there is another method of two-lens system ray tracing that we don't get, but it felt really weird.

Im glad you enjoyed the laser shoot! I did not build it, but I ran it for you guys and really enjoyed seeing the way you approached it. It was definitely interesting to see how many of the teams in the top 6 used pretty different methods on the laser shoot, but nearly all in the top 6 did 5 mirrors + 1 barrier mirror. I will say the test was written by an ES who was not able to attend Nationals in the end and the ES doing the grading was very fair in how he approached grading the ray tracing and was pretty lenient with it, making sure to take into account the teams' intent and giving partial credit as such. Despite all accounts on here about how the test was not hard enough, it actually did do a pretty good job separating teams and the margins within the top 6 were wide enough IMO.
President of Science Olympiad at the University of Florida || Boca Raton Community High School Alumni
kevin@floridascienceolympiad.org
windu34's Userpage

Event Supervisor for 2019:
MIT - Mission Possible
Harvard - Sounds of Music
Princeton - Herpetology
Nationals - Circuit Lab

CalColin
Member
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: July 27th, 2017, 8:32 pm
State: -

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby CalColin » May 21st, 2018, 10:28 pm

The48thYoshi wrote:Herpetology (4): The test, while it didn't seem very long, was much harder than I had anticipated. There were questions on stations where I had no clue about (especially the Ensatina and Eumeces stations). While the test did include an audio, it was included in a way such that it was very easy to guess it (they had an image and asked if the audio was from the same family). I feel like we had guessed at least 30% of the test. Overall, I'd give it an 8/10.


Hello! This is your event supervisor - I was the fella with the thick-rimmed glasses and black shirt. Congrats on your superb finish, you guys rocked it!

Glad you enjoyed the event. The other test writer and I agreed that we wanted a broad range of question difficulty. So while we expected almost everyone to know some questions, we also wrote a few "challenge questions" that we expected only a couple teams (at most) would be able to answer. I hope I was able to do that in Stations 11-20, which I wrote. I know which questions you're talking about on the Eumeces station - there were definitely a couple that were designed to be these challenge questions.

Party on!

(EDIT: Just to be totally clear to any onlookers, I ran Herp B. Herp C was an entirely different set of people.)
Last edited by CalColin on May 22nd, 2018, 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wellwood Middle School SO 2008-10
Fayetteville-Manlius High School SO 2010-13
Science Olympiad at Cornell 2014-2017
Golden Gate SO 2017-Present
Host Committee, Science Olympiad National Tournament at Cornell University, 2019

User avatar
MissAmargasaurus
Member
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: November 2nd, 2017, 8:18 am
Division: C
State: ID

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby MissAmargasaurus » May 21st, 2018, 11:11 pm

Gosh, Saturday was a doozy! It was a lot of fun and congratulations to everyone who was able to participate in it this season.

Herpetology (30th): 4/10. It... was unfortunately definitely way too easy for a national level test. When I first heard 100 second stations I got really worried, but what ended up happening was we'd have questions answered almost immediately and just... wait around. I feel bad, since the ES was obviously very enthusiastic and proud. I do think it was organized very well though. I hope next year there will be more difficulty (more non-multiple choice questions, maybe 3-5 questions instead for 2 for each station, etc) and there will be a deserving herp test. On the other hand I am giving it a 4 for personal reasons of me being absolutely exhausted when doing it (final event of the day for me) and it was kind of nice to relax, and the one 'rest' station was a good idea.

Experimental Design (29th): 8/10. Definitely an improvement from last year. I'm VERY glad that it was made sure every team actually performed an experiment. I do wish the prompt was something harder though, or at least not so close to last year's one. I believe that the simple prompts are so the real competition is which team is best at knowing the rubric well, but something challenging would have been really nice. I think the thing with the goggles was weird though, I really wish it'd actually be required to wear them at all times like we're (I've always thought??) supposed to like the rules say.

Ecology (56th): 5/10. Probably my own fault for not studying the right things somehow, but I found a lot of the material to be too oddly specific and there weren't enough questions on other principles of ecology. Thee stations were weird for an event like this and 3 minutes wasn't enough time for us to complete the one station that required math, which probably caused our placing. It was a good test though, it just really needed a better format in order to shine.
2016-17 Season: Experimental Design, Invasive Species, Wind Power, Forenics
2017-2018 Season: Experimental Design, Ecology, Herpetology
2018-2019 Season: Experimental Design, Fossils, Herpetology, Wright Stuff
I love reptiles and fossils! <3

ScottMaurer19
Member
Member
Posts: 587
Joined: January 5th, 2017, 9:39 am
Division: Grad
State: OH
Location: Solon, OH

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby ScottMaurer19 » May 22nd, 2018, 4:37 am

CalColin wrote:
The48thYoshi wrote:Herpetology (4): The test, while it didn't seem very long, was much harder than I had anticipated. There were questions on stations where I had no clue about (especially the Ensatina and Eumeces stations). While the test did include an audio, it was included in a way such that it was very easy to guess it (they had an image and asked if the audio was from the same family). I feel like we had guessed at least 30% of the test. Overall, I'd give it an 8/10.


Hello! This is your event supervisor - I was the fella with the thick-rimmed glasses and black shirt. Congrats on your superb finish, you guys rocked it!

Glad you enjoyed the event. The other test writer and I agreed that we wanted a broad range of question difficulty. So while we expected almost everyone to know some questions, we also wrote a few "challenge questions" that we expected only a couple teams (at most) would be able to answer. I hope I was able to do that in Stations 11-20, which I wrote. I know which questions you're talking about on the Eumeces station - there were definitely a couple that were designed to be these challenge questions.

Party on!

(EDIT: Just to be totally clear to any onlookers, I ran Herp B. Herp C was an entirely different set of people.)

I'm pretty sure the Div B students I coach liked the test. If nothing else it was much bet than the state test which was only ~30 some questions and allowed them to show off their knowledge.
Solon '19 Captain, CWRU '23
Placements:
2017 (r/s/n):
Hydro: 3/5/18
Robot Arm: na/1/1
Rocks: 1/1/1

2018 (r/s/n):
Heli: 2/1/7
Herp: 1/4/4
Mission: 1/1/6
Rocks: 1/1/1
Eco: 6/3/9

2019 (r/s/n):
Fossils: 1/1/1
GLM: 1/1/1
Herp: 1/1/5
Mission: 1/1/3
WS: 4/1/10

Top 3 Medals: 144
Golds: 80

User avatar
megrimlockawesom
Member
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: October 14th, 2017, 5:44 pm
Division: C
State: NC

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby megrimlockawesom » May 22nd, 2018, 8:25 am

Im still salty about Solon and Kennedy beating us in BB, but overall I am happy with my 3rd place in BB
Ok this is epic 8-)
Events 2018: Battery Buggy (3rd at Nats), Rollercoaster (18th at Nats), Ping Pong (1st at states)
Events 2019: Codebusters, Ping Pong Parachute, Thermodynamics

I like Overwatch, Marvel, and food

Bottom Text

User avatar
Kyanite
Member
Member
Posts: 202
Joined: November 6th, 2017, 8:43 am
Division: Grad
State: WA
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby Kyanite » May 22nd, 2018, 9:34 am

Herpetology (16) 2/10 This test had the right idea but was far too light and far to general in the questions with specific answers. I felt as though the test writer was new to Scioly and didn't understand the level of expertise the competitors brought to the competition. Expecting an intense fast test as I had seen in past years I intentionally made my notes brief when compared to what was possible so that I could answer quickly and efficiently but the low number of questions, long time period to answer them, and the rather specific answers to very general questions made it very easy for all competitors with much larger binders to outpace me in sheer information. I know this experience has made me want to write tests for scioly tournaments and now that I am a grad I want to deliver the tests competitors deserve.

Rocks and Minerals (28) 8/10 I was expecting a more intense test with more overwhelming information and this test got close to delivering. I did enjoy the extra information given such as the hardness and specific gravity of individual specimens in the event but they were often offered on specimens that were already easy IDs. Overall it was an interesting test with great specimens but it could have been harder in order to differentiate the top placers.

Mission Possible (7) 9/10 I luckily did not have the same experience that Solon's mission had to go through and I enjoyed the proctors who occasionally played devil's advocate, as sticking to the rules is what makes events hard like Mission Possible hard and exciting as you never know whether or not to take risks.

Special thanks to all the event supervisors who worked so hard on these events, writing and proctoring events is a trying experience especially when you are under the intense scrutiny of the competitors and the expectations of everyone involved.

4Head
Member
Member
Posts: 237
Joined: November 14th, 2016, 11:29 am
Division: C
State: -

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby 4Head » May 22nd, 2018, 10:09 am

megrimlockawesom wrote:Im still salty about Solon and Kennedy beating us in BB, but overall I am happy with my 3rd place in BB

heard u got lucky tho :?: :?: :?:
2019 Sounds of Music National Champion

User avatar
sciolyperson1
Member
Member
Posts: 383
Joined: April 23rd, 2018, 7:13 pm
Division: B
State: NJ

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby sciolyperson1 » May 22nd, 2018, 10:39 am

4Head wrote:
megrimlockawesom wrote:Im still salty about Solon and Kennedy beating us in BB, but overall I am happy with my 3rd place in BB

heard u got lucky tho :?: :?: :?:

hmmmm we got 5th oof :(
Community MS (NJ) Captain, Bye Div B
Roller Coaster National Champion '19
Mystery Architecture - 3rd '19
Battery Buggy - 4th '19, 5th '18
Mission Possible - 3rd '17
wHaT aRe YoU TrYiNg To TeLl mE NaTiOnAl ChaMpIoN '19

wbaker18
Member
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: June 27th, 2016, 1:23 pm
Division: Grad
State: MO

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby wbaker18 » May 22nd, 2018, 11:41 am

Remote Sensing (35): This test was similar to last years, with a lot of good physics questions and an overall understanding of the practical uses of remote sensing. All of the tests I've taken this year were pretty much just easy fill-in-the-blank/multiple choice, and so I definitely enjoyed taking this test more than some earlier ones. I definitely hurt myself by somewhat putting off this event because I decided that I wanted to go all in on Dynamic, but overall it was a good test. My only gripe was no tests I've taken in the past two years have been heavy on image interpretation, which in my opinion is the fundamental aspect of this event. 8/10

Optics (41): Man, I am going to be kicking myself for a long time about that laser shoot. My partner and I used six total reflectors (five mirrors plus the 45 barrier), and the barrier was the fourth reflector in our setup. However, our placement of the third mirror (right before the barrier) was somewhat impeded by another barrier, and I didn't check closely enough to make sure that the mirror was aligned properly with the second mirror (we were a bit time-crunched). Anyhow, the laser ended up clipping the edge of the third mirror and missing the barrier, hitting the wall at a point greater than 150 cm. That's gonna bother me for a long time, but the laser shoot was by far the best run with the best overall box that I've experienced in my one year with this event. The test was pretty standard and nothing special or especially interesting engaging, and the weird ray-tracing bothered me and my partner quite a bit, but overall the event was very well run (the people from UCF always do a fantastic job with regards to SO; see my conclusion for further UCF appreciation). 7/10

Dynamic Planet (5): I spent almost all of my time preparing for this event because historically it's been a) my favorite and b) my most successful, and I decided that as a senior I wanted to go all in on one event. However, the time I spent preparing for this event was pretty much all unnecessary as the test was composed of basically two sections: image identification and brain-dump. The image interpretation was almost all about crustal features and types and was pretty tedious, boring, and all in all, too much of the exam. The brain-dump, while I definitely enjoyed parts C and D (60% of the exam score), it didn't seem to test my knowledge of anything except the breakup of Pangea and the difference between the chemical and physical layers of the Earth. I'm almost certain that there was a new event supervisor, or at least a new test writer, this year, and I definitely enjoyed last year's test more because it was more difficult and involved much more critical interpretation of knowledge. This has been my favorite event in high school, and while I have no business complaining about medaling at my last tournament, I feel that this test could be somewhat improved. 5/10

Science Olympiad National Tournament 2018: Man, Colorado State has a beautiful campus. It was certainly a much nicer environment than the 420 miles of I-70 in Kansas, and I definitely appreciated finally being able to go east-to-west instead of west-to-east and gaining an hour of sleep instead of losing one. The opening ceremonies were a bit boring, and while I appreciated the brevity of the keynote speaker, it still left for something to be desired. However, the only better Opening Ceremonies I can think of was 2014 Orlando (definitely my favorite tournament over the seven years), but overall, this tournament was definitely second place (still a bit mad I had to choose between DP and Rocks). It has been a great seven years, and I think Colorado State was a great place to finally end my Science Olympiad competition career (although I guarantee I will continue to volunteer well into Division D). 9/10
Top-10 Nationals Events
2013: 9th in Forestry
2014: 3rd in Meteorology (Severe Storms)
2016: 4th in Dynamic Planet (Oceanography)
2017: 9th in Dynamic Planet (Tectonics), 9th in Hydrogeology
2018: 5th in Dynamic Planet (Tectonics)

Pembroke Hill '18
UCLA '22

Anapolis
Member
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: December 10th, 2017, 6:54 pm
Division: Grad
State: IL

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby Anapolis » May 22nd, 2018, 4:45 pm

Crime busters (3): Ok I know people are giving good reviews for crime but personally I really disliked the test. I felt like it was too basic, there wasnt a large variety of powders, many were repeated. I also noticed a mixture of yeast and flour. For those of you who aren’t aware, yeast is not allowed to be in mixtures. The fingerprints were also highly debatable and slightly confusing as my partner and I discovered that two of the fingerprint cards were exactly the same. The analysis was also slightly confusing as it wasnt the usual format, instead there were spots for the competitor to list evidence that matches the suspect. This brings back another issue, as soo many of the powders were repeated, they didnt leave a clear culprit, as many people would then have powders found on them and at the crime scene. For example, while there was alot of evidence for Iris it could’ve all been potentially explained by the fact that she is Barry’s wife. The analysis was also only worth 18 points, with the evidence for each of the 5 suspects and the final statement worth only 3 points each. We ended up accusing Killer Frost due to the fact we found that her pen and fingerprint matched the ones found at the crime scene, hoping that because it was only worth three points it wouldn’t effect our score that much. Other than those things the test was ok, I appreciated that they gave high quality pictures of the hairs. I also liked the fact that they let us test our own fabrics and plastics, providing a candle for a burn test and liquids to identify plastics. 5/10
Fast facts (11): Sighh...just a warning beforehand I am a bit salty about this entire event. This test was kind of disappointing. This year the test was so much easier than last years. Because of the level of last year’s test my partner and I were expecting the es to bring it up a notch. We were preparing for an almost impossible test, trying to memorize the endless possibilities of categories that they could give. So when we were given simple and basic categories such as , “Measurment prefixes” or “Tools Found in a Lab” you could imagine our surprise. All the categories given just seemed too simple to be on a National level test. Even the last test which the es said they thiught was the hardest had pretty simple categories, only “Tectonic Plates” and the letters given were all given so that anyone with Any dp or knowledge about plate tectomics would be able to fill them out. Because of this I feel like there wasn’t much that could differentiate schools from each other. And they threw in the wild card category of “Superheroes that defy the laws of physics” which, in my opinion is definitely Not a category that should be given at this level of competition. :evil: 4/10
Road Scholar (6): I guess this test was ok, also on the easy side. We finished pretty fast. I did the topogtralhic section and I really liked the format similar to the 2015? national test (I’ll have to check) with the question and answer format instead of the story line format. I am kind of proud of my placement (as I took a big oof in 2017 and placed 19th :oops:) It could have more accuracy questions, like latitude/longitude instead of distance questions. Other than that, I think it had a good map drawing and profile, and one utm easting question. 8/10
Rocks and Minerals (6) The test was really good, although it seemed liked it was designed for us not to finish :roll: welp I should’ve gone faster or split up the test between my partner and I. The test had 10 stations with 4 minutes each. Although at first 4 minutes sounds like a Lot of time, it really isn't. Each station had about 10-20 id with follow up questions. I appreciated that they provided real samples that were all nice. They also had a variety of questions and it was a rather high level and well-rounded test. 9/10
Write it do it (6): A very long, complex build, run pretty well. My writer didn’t finish writing, but I finished building what he gave me with about seven minutes left to go. 9/10
2017 events
(n)
crime 5
road 19 (oof)

2018 events
(s/n)
fast facts 2/11
rocks 2/6
road 7/6
crime 2/3
widi 2/6
wright stuff (lol only did invies)

shrewdPanther46
Member
Member
Posts: 419
Joined: October 9th, 2017, 6:25 pm
Division: C
State: NJ

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby shrewdPanther46 » May 22nd, 2018, 4:52 pm

For Crime busters (9) I completely agree. I did not like the test. I felt all the ID and stuff were way too simple, and the analysis didn't really make much sense (unless if im missing the big picture here). I wouldn't rank it above a 4/10.

User avatar
megrimlockawesom
Member
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: October 14th, 2017, 5:44 pm
Division: C
State: NC

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby megrimlockawesom » May 22nd, 2018, 6:37 pm

4Head wrote:
megrimlockawesom wrote:Im still salty about Solon and Kennedy beating us in BB, but overall I am happy with my 3rd place in BB

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
Ok this is epic 8-)
Events 2018: Battery Buggy (3rd at Nats), Rollercoaster (18th at Nats), Ping Pong (1st at states)
Events 2019: Codebusters, Ping Pong Parachute, Thermodynamics

I like Overwatch, Marvel, and food

Bottom Text

User avatar
megrimlockawesom
Member
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: October 14th, 2017, 5:44 pm
Division: C
State: NC

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby megrimlockawesom » May 22nd, 2018, 6:37 pm

4Head wrote:
megrimlockawesom wrote:Im still salty about Solon and Kennedy beating us in BB, but overall I am happy with my 3rd place in BB

heard u got lucky tho :?: :?: :?:

Where did you hear this?
Ok this is epic 8-)
Events 2018: Battery Buggy (3rd at Nats), Rollercoaster (18th at Nats), Ping Pong (1st at states)
Events 2019: Codebusters, Ping Pong Parachute, Thermodynamics

I like Overwatch, Marvel, and food

Bottom Text

User avatar
pikachu4919
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 640
Joined: December 7th, 2012, 2:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: IN
Location: West [Favorite Fightin' Frenchman!]

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby pikachu4919 » May 22nd, 2018, 6:54 pm

megrimlockawesom wrote:
4Head wrote:
megrimlockawesom wrote:Im still salty about Solon and Kennedy beating us in BB, but overall I am happy with my 3rd place in BB

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.
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
Ashernoel
Member
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: January 27th, 2017, 1:31 pm
Division: Grad
State: IL
Location: MA

Re: Nationals Event Discussion

Postby Ashernoel » May 22nd, 2018, 7:00 pm

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 :D
NT '19
Harvard '23


Return to “2018 Nationals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest