Scioly.org

Astronomy at NYS was one of the hardest tests I've taken (at least with the DSOs section) ever, comparable to MIT's test in terms of difficulty, as unlike most tests where it just tests your ability to ID the object and spew infomation about them, this test tested concepts behind them, and made you think about the questions, while making it at a length that was definitely doable, but just barely. This was (I think) the only time so far where for one of the DSOs on the image sheet, I had no idea what it was. I can't say much for the math, but it seemed well written. Major props to syo_astro for writing and proctering the test, I had a great (and very stressful) time!

WS and Boomilever were run really well by our Wisconsin supervisors. Both are really nice and know exactly what they are doing.

OpticsNerd wrote:Boomilever

Incidentally, the National event supervisors for this event are Wisconsin-based.

At NJ states, circuit lab was run great. The ES really knew what he was doing. All the wires were sautered. Also, the test was great and the lab section was hard. The ES also removed 3 questions because they were div C level. The event was run in an electronics lab, which added to the event's overall greatness/

Mission at MA states was run ridiculously well, perhaps even better than MIT. The supervisors were knowledgeable, and were very thorough when examining the devices for dimensions (which cost us 2 actions since they were barely out of spec). Regardless, really nicely done.

chuoiit26 wrote:I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well.

You’re welcome

The 2019 Idaho state Crime Busters test was very well done. The supervisors were very helpful, answering any question anyone had. It was held in a chemistry room, a great fit for the event. The test itself was a very good test, with no spelling/grammatical errors I could see. There were 15 unknowns, not to mention fibers, hairs, chromatography, plastics, and physical evidence were all included. The fact that there were five suspects also improved the quality. All in all, this was a practically perfect test, in my opinion. Great job to whoever helped with this event!

Also the state Road Scholar test was great. The length (44 questions) was ideal, and there were no "gimme" questions, nor were there any sort of errors on the test (aside from the misnumbering of one question, but that's a minor detail). The Disease Detectives test, similarly, was surprisingly long (16 pages), but not long enough that it was impossible to finish. The event covered pretty much everything it should cover, and it was in a very nice format. Also, they made it clear which questions were Division C only by highlighting them, a large improvement from last year. Congratulations to the event supervisors and test writers of these events!

Compared to last year (where they had to completely take thermo out of the scores) I guess Thermo went pretty well this year... I haven't heard anyone complain about it and they actually counted the scores this year

I didn't compete today, but I hung out at Boomilever for the entire morning. I'd just like to say the ES's for this event were the most knowledgeable, friendly, and open-minded people I've ever seen. Not only did they run the event well (with minimum time/etc. casualties), but they did it with passion. I don't know anything about Boomilever, but just watching them alone gave me a good sense of understanding. Kudos to these supervisors - good help in MO is certainly rare.

Unfortunately, Boomilever was only an exception.

Everything went very well for me at NC states at NC State . The Experimental Design supervisor was very informed about the event and knew what he was talking about. He was easy to get along with and I learned later that he is actually on the faculty of the Piedmont IB team. They are lucky to have such a great person helping them out! The ED event ran smoothly and my partners and I understood what we had to do. There was simply no complication. 10/10 --

The Circuit Lab event ran smoothly but there were some errors with the readings we got as some of our devices were not the same. However, the supervisors were very understanding and were knowledgable about the problems with running the event. Although I do not think anything was exempt from the test, it was definitely quite a challenge albeit fun. 7/10 --

The Herpetology event was fun and ran smoothly. At regionals, the format that everyone had to move around in was chaotic and crowded. At states, everything was consistent and there was enough room for everyone to move to the next station. The event supervisor was the same as last year (I believe) and expressed great joy in presenting the live specimen to us (Medusa rules!). It was obvious that he cared about the event he was supervising, which made it much better to compete in. There was a challenge, but it was nothing my partner and I could not overcome. 10/10 --

The NC state competition was definitely a step up from last year and as far as I knew, the events were run extraordinarily well. Hats off to the amazing volunteers who made this a great end to my Science Olympiad journey.