Re: Science Olympiad at Penn Invitational 2019
Posted: February 18th, 2019, 10:10 am
have the coaches received the blank test and keys?
Science Olympiad Student Center
https://scioly.org:443/forums/
terence.tan wrote:have the coaches received the blank test and keys?
Yeah, event supervisors did not really have control over the format of the tests, in terms of how printing was run (how many copies of tests were made). I'm not part of finance committee who makes these decisions, but I think it's important to put some things into context because running a tournament is a lot more difficult than it seems as a competitor.Raleway wrote:I have no clue; the proctors I spoke with said they didn't hold control over that (might be an oversight issue). However, the second suggestion is quite valid - I hope more people see that and use it.GoldenKnight1 wrote:I don't understand what you mean by they don't have full control over printing the tests? This issue of only have a set of tests for each time block seems to be a common thing with many university held invitationals. If it is a money thing I am sure most teams would be willing to add a few extra dollars to the registration fee to cover the cost. If it is an environmental thing then why not copy the first half and second half of the test in two separate packets.Raleway wrote:Thoughts on events:
Codebusters: ...understanding that SOUP does not have full control over printing copies of tests).
And regarding Codebusters specifically, with just a little change in format you could have used the test packet as the answer sheet, not had to print an answer sheet, and thus used got to write on the test with using almost the same amount of paper.
Printing a single test set with just enough tests for each time block and then separate answer sheets for every team is the system used by nearly every college-run invitational and most national supervisors. Excessive printing should be avoided when possible to do without sacrificing event quality. There will be some events that this is not appropriate for, but for the most part for most events, this is the best practice.winchesetr wrote: For context, printing at Penn is 10 cents per page (for a double-sided piece of paper). Say the average exam length is 10 pages for a test an answer key combined, and you print 50 exams, that's ~$1,200. This doesn't include the fact that some things need to be printed in color (more expensive), or the fact that some of the exams are a lot longer than that, or any other things that need to be printed single-sided (more expensive). If this cost was pushed onto teams, that would be ~$23 more for a team to register. So any way possible to minimize the amount needed to print was taken. This clearly doesn't work well for all events (you can't for Disease since all teams take the exam at once), and perhaps code-busters should not have been run that way either.
This is perfect and exactly how I always have my exams graded, including rescoring top ~8 if the spread isnt super large between raw scores. There will ALWAYS be grading errors, but this strategy for grading is widely regarded as the most optimal and there is nothing else an ES can do to ensure accurate grading.winchesetr wrote: For Disease we tried to have the same people grade the same questions, to avoid that issue. I also tried to make sure that volunteers that were unfamiliar with the event graded the easier parts that had more objective answers (Sections 3 and 4), while my partner and I graded the specific case-studies (Sections 1 and 2). Any questions on specific questions that the volunteers had we were able to answer. Some of the Section 1s were graded by other people, but I tried to check and make sure that they were consistent with my grading pattern. Any teams that were really close together were also regraded and scores re-added for consistency. Did we make some mistakes? Probably. But we tried our best to be fair all around.
I don't think an additional $25 per team would stop teams from attending. It is hard to imagine that Troy, Boca, New Trier, Brookwood, or Mason to name a few who traveled so far paying for bus, plane, and hotels would have this extra $25 as a deal breaker. Also for most of the non-university held invitationals we have attended it is the expectation that the event supervisor makes 1 copy per team. This cost is something that the supervisor (or their team), in addition to writing the test, has to absorb. If at a university's invitational I don't need to print anything that I am willing to pay more since I am not paying for that on our end. Additionally if I think about all the time and stress that I am saved by not only not having to write a test but also not needing to even judge an event I am happy to pay this extra amount. But that is just me. This could be easily asked of the coaches' attending to get their view of it.windu34 wrote:Printing a single test set with just enough tests for each time block and then separate answer sheets for every team is the system used by nearly every college-run invitational and most national supervisors. Excessive printing should be avoided when possible to do without sacrificing event quality. There will be some events that this is not appropriate for, but for the most part for most events, this is the best practice.winchesetr wrote: For context, printing at Penn is 10 cents per page (for a double-sided piece of paper). Say the average exam length is 10 pages for a test an answer key combined, and you print 50 exams, that's ~$1,200. This doesn't include the fact that some things need to be printed in color (more expensive), or the fact that some of the exams are a lot longer than that, or any other things that need to be printed single-sided (more expensive). If this cost was pushed onto teams, that would be ~$23 more for a team to register. So any way possible to minimize the amount needed to print was taken. This clearly doesn't work well for all events (you can't for Disease since all teams take the exam at once), and perhaps code-busters should not have been run that way either.
Sure, perhaps it's not that big of a deal and some teams would be willing to absorb the cost. However I think that one of the benefits of SOUP is that it aims to be accessible to a wide variety of teams, including teams that are not as well funded as some of the Nationals teams. Princeton (if I'm not wrong) has waived the tournament fee entirely, which I think is extremely cool because Science Olympiad should be accessible to everyone. Penn has tried to keep our fees low (in comparison to say, MIT, or even local invitationals such as Battle of Valley Forge). Also I think costs incurred by high schools when they write tests and print them are lower for many schools, because in many districts (at least in this area), printing is free. Again, would some exams benefit from having a copy for every team? Sure, but it's also important to take into consideration the cost impact that has on the tournament, accessibility for non-wealthy schools, and also (as was mentioned earlier), the environmental impact.GoldenKnight1 wrote:I don't think an additional $25 per team would stop teams from attending. It is hard to imagine that Troy, Boca, New Trier, Brookwood, or Mason to name a few who traveled so far paying for bus, plane, and hotels would have this extra $25 as a deal breaker. Also for most of the non-university held invitationals we have attended it is the expectation that the event supervisor makes 1 copy per team. This cost is something that the supervisor (or their team), in addition to writing the test, has to absorb. If at a university's invitational I don't need to print anything that I am willing to pay more since I am not paying for that on our end. Additionally if I think about all the time and stress that I am saved by not only not having to write a test but also not needing to even judge an event I am happy to pay this extra amount. But that is just me. This could be easily asked of the coaches' attending to get their view of it.windu34 wrote:Printing a single test set with just enough tests for each time block and then separate answer sheets for every team is the system used by nearly every college-run invitational and most national supervisors. Excessive printing should be avoided when possible to do without sacrificing event quality. There will be some events that this is not appropriate for, but for the most part for most events, this is the best practice.winchesetr wrote: For context, printing at Penn is 10 cents per page (for a double-sided piece of paper). Say the average exam length is 10 pages for a test an answer key combined, and you print 50 exams, that's ~$1,200. This doesn't include the fact that some things need to be printed in color (more expensive), or the fact that some of the exams are a lot longer than that, or any other things that need to be printed single-sided (more expensive). If this cost was pushed onto teams, that would be ~$23 more for a team to register. So any way possible to minimize the amount needed to print was taken. This clearly doesn't work well for all events (you can't for Disease since all teams take the exam at once), and perhaps code-busters should not have been run that way either.
This is again why I wish teams had been able to separate the tests. I have read so many times about hardworking division D SO members who work hard on making fantastic test questions but who often don't know how to edit their test. If the top teams are only seeing about half your test because they are running out of time then what is the point of including as much as you did. And if the main reason they are not getting to it is because they were not allowed to separate the test then that should be considered when designing the test. This idea of trying to save money on copying is why we have seen at some competitions the Experiment Design packet not used or, worse still, double sided.zcgolf16 wrote:My one comment would be that I don't see the point of a test that is "not possible to finish". It prevents teams from getting in competition practice on all aspects and topics of the event.
Free? That is not my school. It comes directly out of our Science Department budget coded as I was the one who made the copies. Many supplies for events also work the same way. Maybe that is just my building though.winchesetr wrote:Sure, perhaps it's not that big of a deal and some teams would be willing to absorb the cost. However I think that one of the benefits of SOUP is that it aims to be accessible to a wide variety of teams, including teams that are not as well funded as some of the Nationals teams. Princeton (if I'm not wrong) has waived the tournament fee entirely, which I think is extremely cool because Science Olympiad should be accessible to everyone. Penn has tried to keep our fees low (in comparison to say, MIT, or even local invitationals such as Battle of Valley Forge). Also I think costs incurred by high schools when they write tests and print them are lower for many schools, because in many districts (at least in this area), printing is free. Again, would some exams benefit from having a copy for every team? Sure, but it's also important to take into consideration the cost impact that has on the tournament, accessibility for non-wealthy schools, and also (as was mentioned earlier), the environmental impact.
Teams were not allowed to separate their exams? That's news to me. We had staplers accessible, so teams should have been allowed to separate the exams even if they were not able to write on them. I'm not sure I understand your criticism entirely, or what you are suggesting. Most invitationals where test packets are reused allow test separation, but just not writing on the exam booklets. That's definitely an issue that can be addressed.GoldenKnight1 wrote:This is again why I wish teams had been able to separate the tests. I have read so many times about hardworking division D SO members who work hard on making fantastic test questions but who often don't know how to edit their test. If the top teams are only seeing about half your test because they are running out of time then what is the point of including as much as you did. And if the main reason they are not getting to it is because they were not allowed to separate the test then that should be considered when designing the test. This idea of trying to save money on copying is why we have seen at some competitions the Experiment Design packet not used or, worse still, double sided.zcgolf16 wrote:My one comment would be that I don't see the point of a test that is "not possible to finish". It prevents teams from getting in competition practice on all aspects and topics of the event.
Free? That is not my school. It comes directly out of our Science Department budget coded as I was the one who made the copies. Many supplies for events also work the same way. Maybe that is just my building though.winchesetr wrote:Sure, perhaps it's not that big of a deal and some teams would be willing to absorb the cost. However I think that one of the benefits of SOUP is that it aims to be accessible to a wide variety of teams, including teams that are not as well funded as some of the Nationals teams. Princeton (if I'm not wrong) has waived the tournament fee entirely, which I think is extremely cool because Science Olympiad should be accessible to everyone. Penn has tried to keep our fees low (in comparison to say, MIT, or even local invitationals such as Battle of Valley Forge). Also I think costs incurred by high schools when they write tests and print them are lower for many schools, because in many districts (at least in this area), printing is free. Again, would some exams benefit from having a copy for every team? Sure, but it's also important to take into consideration the cost impact that has on the tournament, accessibility for non-wealthy schools, and also (as was mentioned earlier), the environmental impact.
Look, I get the desire to keep cost down the Princeton's free registration makes me very reluctant to complain about their copying practices. If you want to keep the cost and environmental impact low why not copy the first half and second half of the test in two separate packets. That keeps the number of copied pages the same but allows the students an easier time working through the test. If there is a reason not to do it this way I would be interested in hearing it but my instinct on this one is just that it has not been considered.