Nationals Event Discussion

[avd2529]

Astronomy (1st): Overall, I would say the test was pretty good. Also, it happened to be super useful that I took the 2020 Nationals test 4 days before the competition. Perhaps some different images for the galaxy spectra could've been used.
Rating: 8.5/10

Fossils (8th): Definitely both the best test I took this Saturday, and the best Fossils test I've taken this season. Long test, good difficulty, no complaints.
Rating: 10/10

Geologic Mapping (1st): I still remember being pretty disappointed when walking out of the auditorium where Geologic Mapping was held at nationals two years ago. In my opinion, that test was too short and easy for a nationals test. My disappointment was compounded by salt when we got 7th. My experiences seriously dampened my expectations for the test this year, so I was pleasantly surprised when the test was actually good. The only really strange question I saw was the question where it screenshotted a section of the map with a stream asked to find it on the map and determine the direction in which the stream was flowing. As my partner realized after I spent 5 minutes trying to find it on the map, the screenshot had been rotated 90 degrees. I don't really understand the point of rotating the screenshot, other than to annoy the pigeon out of everyone. Having not won Geologic Mapping in more than a year, I was pretty surprised to win here. Also happy to have finally redeemed myself for 2019 nationals.
Rating: 9.5/10

Protein Modeling (13th): Pretty decent I guess. The only thing I didn't get was why the Jmol section was 50% of the test. From what I heard, the biochem/CRISPR section was pretty short too. The test definitely could've been hard and longer.
Rating: 7/10

Overall (6th): I was pretty disappointed with how the competition was run, to be honest. Communications was poor (for example, our coach repeatedly received emails intended for a different school, only because they shared the same first name). Some events had terrible and very disappointing tests (how does a team that got 1st in Chem Lab at MIT and 5th at GGSO get 39th at Nationals???, why implement an untested program for the first time at Nationals?, etc.). Thankfully, I managed to dodge most of the problematic events, but I feel sorry for everyone who got screwed over.
Rating: 4/10

[IHateClouds]

DP (20th): I thought it was okay. I think I expected more from Enrica Quartini, since she wrote really good geomaps tests, but I guess that's not the best indicator. It seemed like 80% was a normal DP test and way too easy, 10% was obscure/trivia and 10% was harder. To me, there was a lack of range of difficulty. I was hoping for more explanation-type questions, too. (Not necessarily as long answer, since that's a pain to grade, but more like select all that apply useso-style.)

Rating: 6/10

Geomaps (3rd): I thought this test was so much fun!!! I came out so excited and honestly thought this was like the best test ever. Now, that being said, in hindsight I realize this test, while good, might've been too easy if you split 50/50 or if you had been doing this event for three years. This being my first year, I thought it was at a perfect difficulty! I kind of wish the map reading was a little more interesting though. (In fairness, more map interpretation might just be a personal preference.)

Rating: 10/10

WQ (1st): What even was this?? Last year, at my division B regionals, the test was harder. I'm fairly sure that a bunch of top teams got 100%, so I really can't imagine how the distribution was.

Rating: participation points

Overall (16th): This was a really cool first year! I do miss the in-person, but since Division C was new to me this year, it didn't seem boring. Doing DP Oceano two years in a row was kinda meh but Geomaps made up for it! (I actually like oceanography more than any other subject but tests are just...) Overall, I'm just really glad that we had Science Olympiad this year!

[legendaryalchemist]

Astronomy (4th):
The calculations section was much shorter and easier than I had anticipated. Also, in my 15 tournaments this year, this was the only one to use JS9, which we were caught off guard by. Test length overall was a bit on the shorter side, primarily because of the calculations. The use of images that were on the 2020 national test was also a concern, but despite my complaints, it was still a solid test overall.

Rating: 7/10

Codebusters (13th):
As many have alluded to before, the implementation of Toebes came with its own set of issues. I really wish that Toebes had been implemented earlier in the season, not only to get these issues sorted out, but because taking Codebusters tests in Scilympiad all year was a frustrating experience, and this would have been a better format. I have no complaints whatsoever about test content or length, but the point values for different questions seemed to be just a little bit off. Overall, most of the issues seemed to be out of the supervisor's control, so I can't complain too much.

Rating: 7/10

Experimental Design (6th):
This event was run about as well as it could have been. The supervisors found a clever way to give an experiment that all students would be able to do from home, and everything was handled smoothly. The given materials seemed to point in the direction of static electricity, but the actual topic was creative and different. Overall, great event.

Rating: 10/10

Overall (14th):
This was a pretty exciting way to end a breakout season for our program. There were a couple of poor tests (namely Chem Lab and Forensics), but test quality overall wasn't too bad. I understand how difficult it was to run this tournament in a pandemic year, so I'm happy that we were even able to have this tournament. Special shoutout to our physics guys for going 1/2/2, but this was a true team effort, with every single event putting together a solid performance. Although we were disappointingly close to winning the Corteva Enterprise Award, this was still a huge win for our team. I look forward to in-person competitions next year and hopefully a return to nationals!

Rating: 9/10

[Alex-RCHS]

I'd love to hear from more students about Nationals events this year. As an ES, it helps us to hear from competitors about things they like or don't like in a test.

[ArchdragoonKaela]

Anatomy (7th)
Overall, this test covered noticeably more anatomy than physiology and very little pathophysiology. I mainly did the muscular and skeletal system questions on the test, so I wasn't able to look at what was in the integumentary section, but I wished to have seen more physiology beyond a few multiple-choice and fill-in-the-blank questions on the section I did. However, the test was definitely a decent length.

Rating: 7/10

Designer Genes (11th)
After taking tests for this event at invys like MIT, this test felt like it was on the easier side of things. The last third of the test was very trivia-heavy, and there was little math. While the trivia was fair-game because it fit the rules, I don't feel like it should have taken up a large chunk of the test.

Rating: 7/10

Experimental Design (4th)
I would say that this event was the most well-run out of all of my events. The topic was uncommon and unique, and the event supervisor ran it well. The materials list pointed towards a topic relating to static electricity, which was the basis behind the topic of separating salt and pepper. I think the materials list did a lot to give the topic away, but I understand that is not very avoidable. I will say that I had a much better experience with this event than I did at Nationals in 2019.

Rating: 8.5/10

Ornithology (2nd)
The test for this event emphasized more trivia and conservation than bird identification and harder biology/ecology concepts. None of the bird identifications on the test were hard, and some questions related to sounds gave the bird away. I feel like some of the question wordings (especially on the definitions) made me sit there confused and waste time, and that the test was a bit too short. All of the questions were either fill-in-the-blank, multiple-choice, or select-all-that-apply, which was greatly concerning to me as I realized that some questions had multiple answers that should be considered correct. There weren't any free-response questions requiring elaborations or explanations. This test was definitely an upgrade from 2018 and 2019 Nats herpetology, however.

Rating: 6/10

Overall (23rd)
This season, while incredibly unconventional, opened up a lot of doors in terms of competitions and volunteering for me, and I am grateful for that. I feel like the rules replay burned many people out this year, but with school being in-person next season, I hope that next season will be better!

I'd also like to congratulate everyone for making it through this season, and thank the tournament directors, event supervisors, and volunteers that made Nationals possible.