Texas 2014

[iwonder]

How so?

[jacobxc]

They gave us 31st place in TPS when I competed in it. Now its not like i got in the top four or anything, but it will definitely takes away 10 point and we only lost to Cyfalls by 3 points. Everyone who competed I would suggest to see if they gave your teams the right score. It is not unlikely for this to happen at a competition no matter if its been around for a while or is brand new.

[iwonder]

I actually looked for out TPS test today and couldn't find it. But yeah, you're right... huh. Good job I guess? What was your score? Speaking of which... it looks like Cyfalls was the 3rd place school in TPS so we should have a third place dog tag.... :/

Speaking of TPS, was it just me, or did that just seem like a calculus test? My partner was the one who studied physics, but I've taken Calc BC and I did the physics part since that's all it was... (well, minus the last question)

[jacobxc]

I actually looked for out TPS test today and couldn't find it. But yeah, you're right... huh. Good job I guess? What was your score? Speaking of which... it looks like Cyfalls was the 3rd place school in TPS so we should have a third place dog tag.... :/

Speaking of TPS, was it just me, or did that just seem like a calculus test? My partner was the one who studied physics, but I've taken Calc BC and I did the physics part since that's all it was... (well, minus the last question)

My score is very bad considering I had no clue what I was doing in that test since I usually stick to bio and build events, but what I am saying is we got fifth with a score of 227 and Cyfalls got forth with a score of 224. So like I said 10 or so points taken would mean we would beat them. And there is no way we beat you in TPS.

[iwonder]

Yeah, I know what you said, I just don't want to admit it's entirely true

And they certainly had some scoring issues... but I understand the rush to get everything in and how it could come up. Sorry it had to end up that way.

[lchs]

Look out for a ton of information regarding the Langham Creek Invitational in the next few days. All the details will be posted soon!

[srsvball95]

Interesting discussion regarding Husky. I personally thought the tests were decently written, and given the circumstances (i.e. bad weather not letting certain teams come), I thought that it was a well-run invitational. I was actually surprised that they were able to start awards so early, so kudos to Hopper for that.

I understand where they were going with the dog tags, and personally, I thought it was a nice change from the usual medals.

My team also had a few issues with the scoring, but that's just part of invitationals.

[henceagrin36]

I heard that some of the tests/test questions at Husky could be found online and/or were direct copies from another tests. I didn't personally take these tests, but supposedly the water quality test was a 2011 or so test and based on freshwater instead of the estuaries (or whatever it was. I don't do wq =.=) that were supposed to be the topic of the test. Some other tests were plagiarized. Also, the We've Got Your Number Test consisted of only 1 set of numbers, instead of the usual 2 sets.
Of course, the problems with the tests aren't Husky's fault but rather the fault of the school that wrote the test. However, I've really hoped that I can go to a legit invitational with good tests. Plagiarizing tests is disadvantageous to all teams, since it becomes a competition between who has an answer key for the test and who doesn't, or who remembers the most from last year. It's not even a competition to see who the best is.
I was actually pleased with the early awards ceremony, and I bet a lot of other schools were, too. Even with the insufficient numbers of proctors etc., Husky did do a very good job with running it.

ooh information about langham creek's invitational! I'll be waiting.

[jlee7x2]

Yes but let's all talk about Hendrickson first ^_^

Just kidding (not really), but some comments about Husky:
-Storm the Castle was run so that you had 5 minutes to retrieve your trebuchet, ready the launch position, and THEN fire 4 shots. The guidelines specified 5 minutes for 4 launches (and just the 4 launches), and that's how it was run at state last year. Yet, there was no reasoning with this guy though; his discretion was king because he had the timer in his hand, despite the impracticality. The irksome thing was that he insisted he was right, but didn't penalize anyone... yeah pretty annoying but again,that's not Husky's fault. (edit: jk it is their fault. Hopper ran this event. welp)
-PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't just jack tests from online. To be honest, many teams already have everything (I MEAN EVERYTHING) printed out.

[breadcleaner]

I heard that some of the tests/test questions at Husky could be found online and/or were direct copies from another tests. I didn't personally take these tests, but supposedly the water quality test was a 2011 or so test and based on freshwater instead of the estuaries (or whatever it was. I don't do wq =.=) that were supposed to be the topic of the test. Some other tests were plagiarized. Also, the We've Got Your Number Test consisted of only 1 set of numbers, instead of the usual 2 sets.
Of course, the problems with the tests aren't Husky's fault but rather the fault of the school that wrote the test. However, I've really hoped that I can go to a legit invitational with good tests. Plagiarizing tests is disadvantageous to all teams, since it becomes a competition between who has an answer key for the test and who doesn't, or who remembers the most from last year. It's not even a competition to see who the best is.
I was actually pleased with the early awards ceremony, and I bet a lot of other schools were, too. Even with the insufficient numbers of proctors etc., Husky did do a very good job with running it.

ooh information about langham creek's invitational! I'll be waiting.

yeee water quality was bogus. the national rules explicitly say contests should not include testing information on macroinvertebrates (a big focus in the past years), and they tried to give us 50% of the test over that. I pointed that out during the test to the proctor and he acknowledged that there wasn't much that can be done, so that macroinvertebrate section was abandoned. still, the rest of the test was clearly over past rules so it was basically taking a test without notes and just based on memory