National test discussion

[Unome]

Fossils: This was a very good test; there were 19 stations covering a broad range of material from the rules, good pacing so that to do well you had to be fast, and a variety of questions, from easyish to difficult, so that some stations we finished with some (~20 seconds) time left over, and others we didn't finish at all (as said above, dinosaurs )

5/5

Simple Machines: As said in the above post, this test was too easy. It required very superficial knowledge and basic calculations; we only had to reference the binder twice throughout the whole test, and finished early even after thoroughly checking it. Most likely we got 2-3 questions wrong, so as RontgensWallaby said above, the placings came down to how well teams did on the lever portion (which was the reason we managed to do well on easy tests at all; our lever method has been strong enough to score 45-48 out of 50 for even the most inexperienced competitors since last January). However, I would add that the rest of the event was run very well; the supervisors gave specific instructions for everything, so I never had to ask how to write the ratios, how many significant figures to use (or whether to use them at all), how to stop the lever portion timer, etc, which I would normally have to ask at most other competitions.

4/5

Bio-Process Lab: This was a superb test, directly to the rules (of course, since it was written by the Biology Rules Committee Chair), well paced, and very good difficulty (we only answered about 80% of the questions, yet we still got 4th). This shows exactly what a Bio-Process Lab test should be, since as most of you know, this event is rarely run well.

5/5

Meteorology: I'm not sure how a difficult Meteorology test should be written, so I'm not sure what to say, but my impression of the test was that it was too easy (although not necessarily for me, since that's one of my weaker events); it was the length of our state test, except with less multiple-choice, and no questions that I can remember were very difficult.

4/5

Anatomy: This test was a good example of how not to write (or more specifically, how to not write) a test. The test was the Division C Nebraska state test, printed out of order and recycled from an answer key. Most of the answers were blanked out, but badly, leaving much of the section for the Integumentary short answer questions too dark to write in; additionally, some answers were not blanked out, some questions were blanked out, and some questions referenced a diagram that did not exist, so the proctors said those would be thrown out. However, the end of the test was not printed, including half of a matching section, and for those questions which were missing the correct answers in the matching section, they just told us to "do our best," which to me appears to say that they graded that part.

2/5

[boomvroomshroom]

Astronomy: A
Good challenge, interesting questions, perfect length. Same people running it from last year, so the format was predictable enough.
There were a few weird questions, though. Overall the only way to improve would be to have more space for work on the calculations. I'm not sure how much partial credit is given. I know that each answer gets a nice big "range" because there are different constant values, but eventually there will be answers that go out of range (even if done correctly) because values from one part carry over to the other.

Fossils: A+
Very well run. Great samples, decent length, good challenge on the questions.

Forensics: A
Since it's the same people running it, the format was also predictable. As always, time was a problem, but at least we got plenty of easy trivia cake points to make up for it.
The only bad thing about the lab portion (and it happens every year) is the annoying containers that they use to store the powders/fibers/etc. Those things are extremely difficult to open. I actually took more time trying to get one of the hairs out of the container than actually identifying it under the microscope.

Geologic Mapping: A
The test was great. I personally found it pretty straightforward. Questions were a decent difficulty; overall test was a decent length. They also had some really good quality maps for us.
That being said, the awesome maps were way too big for our tables. I don't think it was the writers' fault since they probably don't get to choose what room the event is in. My advice for next year is to use something that fits on a standard 8.5"x11" piece of paper, just to be safe. We might not be getting those great maps, but as long as you don't resize them too drastically they'll still be readable.

Bungee: F
Same guy from last year. Somehow he managed to follow the rules even less. The rules explicitly state a minimum drop height of 5m; one of the drops was below that. They also allow a calculator - he did not. Instead, he forced teams to use a chart - one which they had to impound. And he wouldn't let anyone verify the drop heights for themselves, nor did he allow one of the partners to help spot - even though you're supposed to have multiple spotters...which they did not have, either.

[syo_astro]

Astronomy: A
Good challenge, interesting questions, perfect length. Same people running it from last year, so the format was predictable enough.
There were a few weird questions, though. Overall the only way to improve would be to have more space for work on the calculations. I'm not sure how much partial credit is given. I know that each answer gets a nice big "range" because there are different constant values, but eventually there will be answers that go out of range (even if done correctly) because values from one part carry over to the other.

Since this is the one event I can actually respond to...hopefully you didn't find my questions to be the weird questions, as I did not help write it in the past (and I think some people switch in and out, though the majority is written by the same two). They throw a flare in at least (unless you mean something else)! The partial credit is I believe done by weighting beforehand. Also, while I favor giving constants, sometimes it really is just down to measurement error that cannot be compensated for too much. I personally went through and checked every question, and I believe two or three others did too (outside Donna+Tad, the event sups). Obviously not trying to be defensive or argue, just showing that it is not so terrible, and thanks for the appropriate A .

[asdfqwerzzz2]

Astronomy: A
Good challenge, interesting questions, perfect length. Same people running it from last year, so the format was predictable enough.
There were a few weird questions, though. Overall the only way to improve would be to have more space for work on the calculations. I'm not sure how much partial credit is given. I know that each answer gets a nice big "range" because there are different constant values, but eventually there will be answers that go out of range (even if done correctly) because values from one part carry over to the other.

Since this is the one event I can actually respond to...hopefully you didn't find my questions to be the weird questions, as I did not help write it in the past (and I think some people switch in and out, though the majority is written by the same two). They throw a flare in at least (unless you mean something else)! The partial credit is I believe done by weighting beforehand. Also, while I favor giving constants, sometimes it really is just down to measurement error that cannot be compensated for too much. I personally went through and checked every question, and I believe two or three others did too (outside Donna+Tad, the event sups). Obviously not trying to be defensive or argue, just showing that it is not so terrible, and thanks for the appropriate A .

Hey Astro! Thanks so much for contributing to such an awesome test! What questions did you write? I personally really enjoyed some of the questions that really were non conventional, like asking the radius of the planet with 2 Earth masses with the same gravitational acceleration as Earth. As evidenced from the survey that I submitted, I'd rate the astronomy test an A+ for sure!

[chalker]

.... Probably all of the top 30 teams and some others aced the test, and thus the top teams were those who spent the most time with their beam......

Looking at the raw scores I have, only 8 teams aced that test, and several teams in the top 10 did NOT ace it. The low score was 18 points, and the average 40. So yes, it might have been a little easy, but by no means a slam dunk.

[syo_astro]

Haha, few questions came from me (I am mostly a checker, and I am still working on my question style). The questions that were most directly mine were on the Herbig Ae/Be star thing on Part A, and the spectral energy distribution question on Part C (I say most directly because it got edited a ton by the sups mutually). I was trying to come up with that blackbody curve question on Part C and trying to come up with a question that would show various effects of transit light curves like on Part A, but Tad (I believe) pulled those together faster than I could (though, I did try to throw some ideas over about that). I actually had a bunch of other questions in mind...perhaps if they let me you will get a few tough things from me .

Also noting off what chalker said. Often at most scores may be close (eg. literally always there's a dang tie), but almost never do people get a 100 on the test. I attribute this mostly because the test really could be anything, and even if you finish, if you hand it in early, don't check the right thing, don't write the right thing, then those all lead to EXTREMELY easy point loss.

[asdfqwerzzz2]

.... Probably all of the top 30 teams and some others aced the test, and thus the top teams were those who spent the most time with their beam......

Looking at the raw scores I have, only 8 teams aced that test, and several teams in the top 10 did NOT ace it. The low score was 18 points, and the average 40. So yes, it might have been a little easy, but by no means a slam dunk.

Hey Chalker, I'm unsure if you even have access to this or the ability to disclose this, but what was the point distribution among the top 6 astronomy teams?

[asdfqwerzzz2]

Haha, few questions came from me (I am mostly a checker, and I am still working on my question style). The questions that were most directly mine were on the Herbig Ae/Be star thing on Part A, and the spectral energy distribution question on Part C (I say most directly because it got edited a ton by the sups mutually). I was trying to come up with that blackbody curve question on Part C and trying to come up with a question that would show various effects of transit light curves like on Part A, but Tad (I believe) pulled those together faster than I could (though, I did try to throw some ideas over about that). I actually had a bunch of other questions in mind...perhaps if they let me you will get a few tough things from me .

Also noting off what chalker said. Often at most scores may be close (eg. literally always there's a dang tie), but almost never do people get a 100 on the test. I attribute this mostly because the test really could be anything, and even if you finish, if you hand it in early, don't check the right thing, don't write the right thing, then those all lead to EXTREMELY easy point loss.

Sorry in advance for the double post, but I must thank you again for your awesome test writing! I thought the questions you wrote were quite solid, but I would've liked to see a less obvious answer to the SED problem. When one the questions was "which circumstellar disk is seen in the SED," followed up with "what circumstellar disk does the disk in part (b) evolve into," it can be quite obvious, as the order is always protoplanetary -> debris. Personally, I wouldn't have known known for sure the answer to that question if it weren't for the followup. In terms of the Herbig questions, I thought they were all great! Regarding your last statement about ties, do you happen to know the point values of the top teams? I'm curious to see how close we were to getting those top 3 medals!

[dragonslikepi]

Entomology: I believe that the test was a little too simple. There were far too many questions asking about metamorphosis and whether the insect was Apterygota or Pterygota . If you got the metamorphosis, you would have gotten the latter question. Additionally, there was only one question regarding the anatomy of the insect. (The one about which system the Malpighian tubules belonged to.) I studied so much about anatomy and sadly there was only one question about it on the test. There was also too much time on our hands. In fact, I correctly guessed what the next station's insects would be by just reading the question. In the end, I think the test came down to who could identify the insects better.

[syo_astro]

I won't reveal how exactly just in case, but in the original question I actually made it longer and tried to make a few parts a fair bit more difficult. Donna/Tad do a good job balancing it out. Sadly not many people can appreciate (or know about...?) the beauty of SEDs! Also, if that was your assumption you're a bit off (right about debris disk...but if you mean just "protoplanetary" in this case). The disk I referred to was actually a transitional disk, which is a bit more specific than just "protoplanetary disk" (as there is the truly primordial full disk, the pre-transitional disk, and the transitional disk). What made it really hard was that part b forced you to EXPLAIN why, which was basically the main, if I may say simple but important, aspect. I get you may find it "easy", but there's always a trick . Things can always get harder though from me, don't you worry...

I sadly don't know point values off the top of my head (didn't have time to get to NE, so I couldn't grade >.>), and I think I'll leave that up to Donna/Tad/Chalker to say.