Pennsylvania 2013

[Wowohn]

Does anyone know when the Division B results will be posted online, and congratulations to everyone that placed.

[havenguy]

Does anyone know when the Division B results will be posted online, and congratulations to everyone that placed.

They will be posted on Tuesday morning.

[stephritz929]

Congrats again to everyone who went to the state tournament yesterday! I was busy running helicopters all day and couldn't meet up with you guys, sorry

I would like feedback from helicopters if possible. This was my first time running a state event, so I would like to get any comments or concerns from you guys. Feel free to PM me or reply here. Thank you guys!

It was ran well in my opinion. The only thing that went wrong was that period six ran way over, and I ended up flying at around 3:15. That wasn't really anyone's fault, however..it was more that maybe the rules should be looked at again, or somehow modified so people don't take ten minutes before their first flight! That made it run really behind schedule. Otherwise everyone was kind and helpful and ran it well!

[JCicc]

Thank you for some very nice comments regarding the PA 2013 Astronomy exam. Watch for it on the test exchange, it will be up soon (several of my old exams are also up there). I thought maybe this was a good time to talk a little about my philosophy when it comes to supervising events; astronomy in particular, as I have supervised this event about 15 times (between the PA Southeast region and the state tournament).

When I write an exam for a Science Olympiad event, I am not interested on bolstering anyone's self-esteem. I don't need to have the scores match some preconceived idea of the "proper" distribution. What I do need is to be able to differentiate 35 or 36 teams beyond any doubt. So my exams are typically too long, too hard, and virtually impossible to score 100% on in a 50 minute time period. Any veterans of my exams can tell you that the scores don't tell me anything in and of themselves other than which team is the best, which team is 2nd best, and so on down the line. I submit that these exams do just that.

Let's be totally frank. Some teams, even at the state level, come into the room with no resources at all. Those teams do not have a prayer. In my estimation, the team that wins should be the team that prepares the best, does the most in-depth research, goes deeply into the content (for example, into subclasses of Type II supernovae and their progenitor stars), and gets contributions from both members of the team. The teams that receive medals will fit these categories.

At any rate, I would like to hear feedback from anyone who took the actual test at states this year (or any other year, for that matter), or anyone who gets a look at it on the test exchange. It has been suggested that perhaps I should put some more questions on the test that are "easy," specifically because sometimes there are scores in the single digits (out of 100 for most exams). I don't like to see scores like that, but to me that just means a team did not prepare for the event at all. Even if you restrict yourself to the object list and spend a day looking up material on each one, you should be able to do well on the first third of the test by putting in a solid two weeks of research time.

I know that my exams are hard. I put a lot of time and effort into making each one, and administering the state astronomy exam is something I look forward to each year. I'll be doing it into the foreseeable future, as far as I can tell at this point. One more thing - typically, the PA representatives at nationals tend to do well in astronomy. One year (I think it was 2005), the PA teams came in 1st and 2nd at nationals, and I will never forget Dr. Putz saying "they must be doing something right in Pennsylvania, because the gold medal is ALSO from the state of Pennsylvania."

[JCicc]

Oh, and you did spell my name right, crabnebula143.

[lmatkovic3]

Thank you for some very nice comments regarding the PA 2013 Astronomy exam. Watch for it on the test exchange, it will be up soon (several of my old exams are also up there). I thought maybe this was a good time to talk a little about my philosophy when it comes to supervising events; astronomy in particular, as I have supervised this event about 15 times (between the PA Southeast region and the state tournament).

When I write an exam for a Science Olympiad event, I am not interested on bolstering anyone's self-esteem. I don't need to have the scores match some preconceived idea of the "proper" distribution. What I do need is to be able to differentiate 35 or 36 teams beyond any doubt. So my exams are typically too long, too hard, and virtually impossible to score 100% on in a 50 minute time period. Any veterans of my exams can tell you that the scores don't tell me anything in and of themselves other than which team is the best, which team is 2nd best, and so on down the line. I submit that these exams do just that.

Let's be totally frank. Some teams, even at the state level, come into the room with no resources at all. Those teams do not have a prayer. In my estimation, the team that wins should be the team that prepares the best, does the most in-depth research, goes deeply into the content (for example, into subclasses of Type II supernovae and their progenitor stars), and gets contributions from both members of the team. The teams that receive medals will fit these categories.

At any rate, I would like to hear feedback from anyone who took the actual test at states this year (or any other year, for that matter), or anyone who gets a look at it on the test exchange. It has been suggested that perhaps I should put some more questions on the test that are "easy," specifically because sometimes there are scores in the single digits (out of 100 for most exams). I don't like to see scores like that, but to me that just means a team did not prepare for the event at all. Even if you restrict yourself to the object list and spend a day looking up material on each one, you should be able to do well on the first third of the test by putting in a solid two weeks of research time.

I know that my exams are hard. I put a lot of time and effort into making each one, and administering the state astronomy exam is something I look forward to each year. I'll be doing it into the foreseeable future, as far as I can tell at this point. One more thing - typically, the PA representatives at nationals tend to do well in astronomy. One year (I think it was 2005), the PA teams came in 1st and 2nd at nationals, and I will never forget Dr. Putz saying "they must be doing something right in Pennsylvania, because the gold medal is ALSO from the state of Pennsylvania."

Thank you for writing those tests. I have one question, though. On the last page of the 2008 state exam, I think I noticed a typo, either in the key or in the question info itself in questions 82-85.

[JCicc]

Should be 2.35 parsecs, right? What else is wrong?

[lmatkovic3]

I think 84 and 85 but I will double check.

Edit: I'm getting 3.25 for 84 and 4.27 for 85.
I think those are the only ones I've noticed, and I have gone through all of yours thus far.

[havenguy]

Here are the more detailed div. B results. I may be missing a few:

6.Welsh Valley: 1 third, 3 fourths, 4 fifths (I'm missing one)

5.Allen: 1 first, 1 third, 4 fourths, 1 fifth

4.Bala Cynwyd: 5 seconds, 2 thirds, 1 fifth

3.Stroudsburg: 5 firsts, 2 seconds, 2 thirds, 1 fifth

2.Strath Haven: 4 firsts, 6 seconds, 1 third, 2 fourths, 1 fifth

1.Shady Side: 9 firsts, 5 seconds, 2 thirds, 3 fourths

[Sciolapedia]

I would just like to say nice job to everyone especially Shadyside and strath haven for a job well done. Looking forward to nationals and seeing strath again. I'm going to start to do some major studying now so I can place at nationals.