Page 17 of 21

Re: Florida 2019

Posted: March 31st, 2019, 4:26 pm
by jaah5211
jaggie34 wrote:
jaah5211 wrote:
jaggie34 wrote:Sounds of Music C also seems to be getting reviewed/revised

Edit: It came back online and I didn't notice any differences
Protein Modeling C was just changed.
Wright Stuff just changed as well
Do you think there will be any other changes?

Re: Florida 2019

Posted: March 31st, 2019, 4:36 pm
by jaggie34
There's always the chance of change until the results are finalized tomorrow. OSS has closed some distance on Archimedian, so it's definitely something to watch.

Re: Florida 2019

Posted: March 31st, 2019, 5:40 pm
by will926ok3645
The Game On results are not showing up for Division B. With only 3 points separating RSCA and American Heritage, there is a chance that the first-year school lands a spot to go to nationals. Will be interesting to keep an eye on.

EDIT: The scores came back with no change in overall ranking

Re: Florida 2019

Posted: March 31st, 2019, 5:57 pm
by sciolyperson1
will926ok3645 wrote:The Game On results are not showing up for Division B. With only 3 points separating RSCA and American Heritage, there is a chance that the first-year school lands a spot to go to nationals. Will be interesting to keep an eye on.
Looks to me as if they are updated. http://state.soss.floridascienceolympia ... 2019&embed

Not sure if its just not finalized yet or something tho

Re: Florida 2019

Posted: March 31st, 2019, 7:31 pm
by jaah5211
Shall we do event reviews?

Re: Florida 2019

Posted: March 31st, 2019, 8:21 pm
by jaggie34
jaah5211 wrote:Shall we do event reviews?
Fermi Questions: The test wasn't the longest I've seen but it was definitely a good length for a state tournament and was very well written. There was a good combination of questions my partner and I could actually solve out, ones that could be answered by memorization, and completely random ones. The event supervisor and volunteers all seemed very nice as well.

Circuit Lab: I felt that this event was a bit easy. I think this was evidenced by there being a 3-way tie for second place and the margin between 1st and not placing being 5 points. The lab was especially simple and accounted for more points than the task should have been worth (by the rules it fell into the 25-50% range but in my opinion, it was too easy to be worth as many points as it was and more could have been added). While the test was better, it still wasn't very difficult. It was still a good test for a state tournament though, albeit odd formatting.

Thermodynamics: I was pleasantly surprised with how well this event was run. I've seen device testing run much worse at higher level competitions, and although I heard that there were some slight issues earlier in the day, our experience was overall good. The test was again short and not especially difficult, but there were enough higher level questions to discern between top teams.

Re: Florida 2019

Posted: March 31st, 2019, 10:55 pm
by pepperonipi
jaggie34 wrote:
Fermi Questions: The test wasn't the longest I've seen but it was definitely a good length for a state tournament and was very well written. There was a good combination of questions my partner and I could actually solve out, ones that could be answered by memorization, and completely random ones. The event supervisor and volunteers all seemed very nice as well.
I agree for Fermi - nothing was out of the ordinary, which was great. The supervisors were very nice as well.

Code Busters: The test was very nice and nothing was out of the ordinary, as it was built with Toebes. There was a good mix, but it felt like there was a few less monoalphabetic ciphers than you would find on a typical test, but I can't say for sure. The timed question wasn't too hard to solve, and the event was run pretty smoothly.
jaggie34 wrote:
Thermodynamics: I was pleasantly surprised with how well this event was run. I've seen device testing run much worse at higher level competitions, and although I heard that there were some slight issues earlier in the day, our experience was overall good. The test was again short and not especially difficult, but there were enough higher level questions to discern between top teams.
100% agree! The event was run very great, including the device portion, where they even provided us with stopwatches to track time - something I had never seen in a competition this season, even at MIT or UPenn. The test wasn't too bad either.

Re: Fwowida 2019

Posted: April 1st, 2019, 11:32 am
by Killboe
Rollercoaster updated, River City now second place.

Event Reviews :

Thermo : The test was really, really easy.. Basically the only way you could get a placement was getting your prediction spot on. The proctor was kind of annoying not gonna lie. He was doing something against the rules and we called him out on it, he was like "My test my rules". Whatever, he poured the water through 2 beakers (not against the rules), however that's not normal routine. That really messed up our prediction and we didn't get a placement.

Disease : 14 question test, also very easy. Relative risk made up like 4 questions so that was weird.

Solar : 170 question test, very easy, I was SO confident in placing. But I didn't, I guess the test was easy for everybody else too. Very cheat sheet dependent. All questions were on topic.

EDIT : Result sight down, let's see what happens.

EDIT : Rollercoaster taken out of scoring, 8 points seperating American Heritage and RCSA

EDIT : Roller coaster in scoring, River City second place.

Re: Fwowida 2019

Posted: April 1st, 2019, 6:34 pm
by jaah5211
Chemistry Lab (1): Test wasn't well written in my honest opinion. The test questions were too easy and the lab (titration) and identification of the metals (density) was way too easy. You could almost certainly identify the metals without the density if you study Chemistry frequently. The test writer should write questions that test more extensive/in depth knowledge. (Ex: Acids and BasesARIO And Acidity, pH and Solubility,Buffer Creation lab/Advanced Titration, Acid and Base Questions pertaining to Buffer and theories (solvent leveling, Hard and Soft Acids and Bases). Physical Properties: Colligative Properties (Raoult's law, Henry's Law, Boiling Point Elevation, Freezing Point Depression, Solubility and Qualitative Analysis, Density using Unit Cells, Molecular Orbital Theory --> Para/Diamagnetism. CFT--> Color and magnetism.) These are just some topics that could've been tested, but none were... Wished that the test was more challenging. (4/10)

Thermodynamics(4): Again the test wasn't well written... It didn't test enough thermodynamics to distinguish the teams properly. I think placement depended a lot on the prediction of the temperature more than how well you knew thermo. I wish the test was more similar to the regional of UFSO (was the author changed?). However, everything else was ran well. Especially temperature recording. Better than MIT I would say. (7/10)

Protein Modeling(3): The test for this event was sooooo well written. The modeling (onsite) and the test was quite difficult. It was very well run and I think it distinguished the teams properly. (10/10)\


I'm late but Congratulations to Boca Raton and OSS for their state championship!!! It was amazing to see both teams/schools to dominate Div C and Div B competitions!

Re: Fwowida 2019

Posted: April 2nd, 2019, 6:21 am
by windu34
jaah5211 wrote: Thermodynamics(4): Again the test wasn't well written... It didn't test enough thermodynamics to distinguish the teams properly. I think placement depended a lot on the prediction of the temperature more than how well you knew thermo. I wish the test was more similar to the regional of UFSO (was the author changed?). However, everything else was ran well. Especially temperature recording. Better than MIT I would say. (7/10)
The thermo supervisors at states were different from the ones at the UF Regional. They modeled the temperature recording off of the North Carolina SO organizations videos - I'm glad that went well, the device testing part for thermo is quite seldomly done right.