2010 National Tournament: University of Illinois

[E Edgar]

Thank goodness we don't have another AP test conflict: last year was a little rough.

[gneissisnice]

full-ride scholarship to Div C gold medalists...an incredible package. yet fewer than expected people express interest in it

Boo, I got two 5th place medals and a 3rd place.
So close =(.

Now if the fossil test was actually FAIR, I would have gotten first, I know it.

[gyourkoshaven]

Do people usually get there Thursday or Friday?

[fmtiger124]

full-ride scholarship to Div C gold medalists...an incredible package. yet fewer than expected people express interest in it

Boo, I got two 5th place medals and a 3rd place.
So close =(.

Now if the fossil test was actually FAIR, I would have gotten first, I know it.

uh...genissisnice the full ride is for this upcoming nats comp at Illinois not from last years at ASU.

[Deeisenberg]

full-ride scholarship to Div C gold medalists...an incredible package. yet fewer than expected people express interest in it

Boo, I got two 5th place medals and a 3rd place.
So close =(.

Now if the fossil test was actually FAIR, I would have gotten first, I know it.

I agree that the test was poorly made and generally ridiculous, but given that it was taken by everyone, and the questions themselves were not that bad, it was (more or less) completely "fair".

Now if it were a GOOD test, I am sure the rankings would not have been the same. As it was, the outcome was largely (though quite far from completely) determined by test taking skills. This would include if or how the two competitors had broken up the test, techniques used on multiple choice questions that could not be completed in the given time (guessing), and sharing (or not) the binder between competitors. However no matter how well you handled the test, getting the correct answers was still mostly dependent on how much you knew. Normally the quality of the binder would also have a lot to do with it, and while it still certainly did, it was not to the same extent because you didn't really have much time to use the binder.

At any rate to say that you "know" you would have gotten 1st if the test was made well is quite a leap for anyone to make. Unfortunately it will never be known exactly how the results would have unfolded if the test were better made, however no matter how good you are, it is quite a stretch to assume that you would get first. I stand by that in (almost) any situation (the (almost) does not refer to myself). To assume that you would get 1st in any event in nationals is a bit egotistical.

[WrightStuffMonster]

Wow that is really generous. Wichita (3rs ago) offered winners a 2k scholarship... Good luck to everyone this year. I bet its going to be a really great nationals. I doubt all that many take advantage of it though as winning SO helps give you options for college.

[Phenylethylamine]

full-ride scholarship to Div C gold medalists...an incredible package. yet fewer than expected people express interest in it

Boo, I got two 5th place medals and a 3rd place.
So close =(.

Now if the fossil test was actually FAIR, I would have gotten first, I know it.

I agree that the test was poorly made and generally ridiculous, but given that it was taken by everyone, and the questions themselves were not that bad, it was (more or less) completely "fair".

This gets said a lot. I just want to say that it's not really true; overly easy tests present far more of an advantage to less prepared teams, and tests that are too dependent on standard test-taking skills are comparing teams on a completely different metric than how much about the topic they know, which is presumably the point. Just because everyone took the same test doesn't mean it was fair, because different situations impact teams differently. Although this is obviously still true in a case where less prepared teams are disadvantaged relative to more prepared teams, that's the outcome you're looking for, so you want to spread out the results that way.

At any rate to say that you "know" you would have gotten 1st if the test was made well is quite a leap for anyone to make. Unfortunately it will never be known exactly how the results would have unfolded if the test were better made, however no matter how good you are, it is quite a stretch to assume that you would get first. I stand by that in (almost) any situation (the (almost) does not refer to myself). To assume that you would get 1st in any event in nationals is a bit egotistical.

True; I don't think he can assume he definitely would have gotten first. However, knowing both him personally and the insane Rocks/Fossils legacy in his (and my) district, he would certainly have had a very good chance. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that Gelinas and Ward Melville consistently produce people who are among the best at those events; the Gelinas head coach is a crazy Earth Science fanatic, and he trains his kids well. True, you don't see us in the top spot in those events every year we're at Nats, but we're usually not too far down the list. I haven't studied the results from all the years we've gone to Nationals- Gelinas and Ward Melville- but I don't think there's any other team that so consistently shows up in the high ranks of that event.
Also, gneissisnice is himself crazy good at Fossils, so yeah.

[E Edgar]

Though this is slightly off topic, I would like to present my opinion about the fossils event last year at nationals.

I think that for the most part, the event was run very well.
Fossils is an event where it becomes extremely difficult to differentiate between competitors once you get to a certain level since at that point, there are several people that have such good binders that they can easily look up the answer to any question they don't already know. By giving masses of questions, and therefore no time to look in binders, the nationals test basically boiled down to whoever knew the most did the best. With fewer questions, I think there either would have been a few perfects at the top or it would've come down to who made the fewest trivial mistakes or wrote the most on tiebreaker questions.

Note that I am not arguing for the abolition of binders since no doubt they were very useful in differentiating between those in the middle of the pack.

Anyway, no one can argue that the fossil samples weren't positively amazing.

[Deeisenberg]

Though this is slightly off topic, I would like to present my opinion about the fossils event last year at nationals.

I think that for the most part, the event was run very well.
Fossils is an event where it becomes extremely difficult to differentiate between competitors once you get to a certain level since at that point, there are several people that have such good binders that they can easily look up the answer to any question they don't already know. By giving masses of questions, and therefore no time to look in binders, the nationals test basically boiled down to whoever knew the most did the best. With fewer questions, I think there either would have been a few perfects at the top or it would've come down to who made the fewest trivial mistakes or wrote the most on tiebreaker questions.

Note that I am not arguing for the abolition of binders since no doubt they were very useful in differentiating between those in the middle of the pack.

Anyway, no one can argue that the fossil samples weren't positively amazing.

A difficult test is, when made well, a good thing, I am not saying it isn't. I am saying that the difficulty of the test wasn't the problem, in fact the test wasn't very difficult at all, it is just that there were an overwhelming number of fairly easy questions. Asking so many easy questions (and note the number of questions resulted in very few finishing the test completely) made the results highly dependent on test taking skills as opposed to actual knowledge. For instance I know that the few teams who actually split up the questions (something almost never necessary in an identification event) tended to come to the very top of the pack.

A good test should have neither excessive questions resulting in results being based on test taking skills, nor too few giving a huge amount of time to look EVERYTHING up. The questions should be difficult, and the identification slightly challenging (I say slightly because otherwise you wind up with very poor nearly unidentifiable samples). You need to have a good few questions on the basics, such as fossils ranges, these separate the teams at the bototm from those at the top (very large groups on each side). You then need difficult questions, and very difficult questions that test how complete preparation was and how much is actually known. Perhaps the style of that test would be suitable for a single station, but not an entire test.

Boo, I got two 5th place medals and a 3rd place.
So close =(.

Now if the fossil test was actually FAIR, I would have gotten first, I know it.

I agree that the test was poorly made and generally ridiculous, but given that it was taken by everyone, and the questions themselves were not that bad, it was (more or less) completely "fair".

This gets said a lot. I just want to say that it's not really true; overly easy tests present far more of an advantage to less prepared teams, and tests that are too dependent on standard test-taking skills are comparing teams on a completely different metric than how much about the topic they know, which is presumably the point. Just because everyone took the same test doesn't mean it was fair, because different situations impact teams differently. Although this is obviously still true in a case where less prepared teams are disadvantaged relative to more prepared teams, that's the outcome you're looking for, so you want to spread out the results that way.

At any rate to say that you "know" you would have gotten 1st if the test was made well is quite a leap for anyone to make. Unfortunately it will never be known exactly how the results would have unfolded if the test were better made, however no matter how good you are, it is quite a stretch to assume that you would get first. I stand by that in (almost) any situation (the (almost) does not refer to myself). To assume that you would get 1st in any event in nationals is a bit egotistical.

True; I don't think he can assume he definitely would have gotten first. However, knowing both him personally and the insane Rocks/Fossils legacy in his (and my) district, he would certainly have had a very good chance. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that Gelinas and Ward Melville consistently produce people who are among the best at those events; the Gelinas head coach is a crazy Earth Science fanatic, and he trains his kids well. True, you don't see us in the top spot in those events every year we're at Nats, but we're usually not too far down the list. I haven't studied the results from all the years we've gone to Nationals- Gelinas and Ward Melville- but I don't think there's any other team that so consistently shows up in the high ranks of that event.
Also, gneissisnice is himself crazy good at Fossils, so yeah.

Don't take what I said as an insult, I do not doubt that gneiss is very good. I am simply saying that you do have to remember that while you many be very very good, that doesn't mean that there aren't others who are just as good.

[Phenylethylamine]

Don't take what I said as an insult, I do not doubt that gneiss is very good. I am simply saying that you do have to remember that while you many be very very good, that doesn't mean that there aren't others who are just as good.

Don't worry, I mainly replied because the whole "if everyone took the same test, it's fair" myth bothers me. Then I figured while I was at it, I might as well put in a few words on the awesomeness of my friend and mentor gneissisnice lol.

Oh, and I think when people say "I know I would have gotten Xth place", they usually mean "I know I could have gotten Xth place." In any case, regardless of whether that's what they meant or not, I recommend reading it that way lol.