rfscoach wrote:I don't understand the belief the a huge tounament is a better tournament. When you get that big the tests suffer as you have to trade variety of styles for quickness in grading. Not a fan....
I hear your point, however I don't think it reflects the reality at our tournament. We have hundreds of volunteers from both Solon and the participating teams, which makes it entirely possible to grade complex exams successfully. Do I recommend extended response questions to our supervisors? No. But I don't recommend them for small tournaments either - grading them is often arbitrary. Multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, true/false, matching, short answer, calculations, etc. are all still easily scorable within the time available.
For example, Experimental Design is not an event whose grading you can shorten - the format is exactly the same each week. It is also an event that requires a lot of time to grade well. However, last year with 66 teams we still had results finalized for XPD before 5:00, allowing us to start awards on time. We had an experienced supervisor and gave her abundant volunteers so they could split up the various sections.
We are also recruiting state and national event supervisors to run our mechanical events to ensure we can move through sufficient teams with quality. MIT runs 70 teams every year with high levels of difficulty and quality - I am confident we can match that.