Musings on Test Length

[sneepity]

Yes, I do agree with that. However, me being a 6th grader and all, I had practice tests with regular probably state/regionals level. So, I went to Rickards, and boom... 8th graders at my school say it was like nationals. Me: That would explain. But I think that for some people who got like 1 place below me, 23.50 for example on machines out of 286 may be pretty discouraging for them. This could cause them to quit science olympiad and/or get really sad (hopefully none actually happened). I think you shouldn't start of like easy easy, but maybe for the time being at like state levels for invitationals. My regionals is like in February, so there would be plenty of time to go to National Level Invitationals.

Hmm what do you mean by start off? That invitationals should be easier earlier in the season, and harder later on? Or do you mean schools themselves should choose to attend easier invitationals early on, and harder ones later on?

Also, specific to this year, and part of why I dislike the rules replay: people new to SciOly are competing with people who were prepared for Nationals by last year. Normally there would be a somewhat more even playing field, but it's hard to avoid boring strong returning people without crushing new people's self-esteem.

[Umaroth]

Yes, I do agree with that. However, me being a 6th grader and all, I had practice tests with regular probably state/regionals level. So, I went to Rickards, and boom... 8th graders at my school say it was like nationals. Me: That would explain. But I think that for some people who got like 1 place below me, 23.50 for example on machines out of 286 may be pretty discouraging for them. This could cause them to quit science olympiad and/or get really sad (hopefully none actually happened). I think you shouldn't start of like easy easy, but maybe for the time being at like state levels for invitationals. My regionals is like in February, so there would be plenty of time to go to National Level Invitationals.

Hmm what do you mean by start off? That invitationals should be easier earlier in the season, and harder later on? Or do you mean schools themselves should choose to attend easier invitationals early on, and harder ones later on?

Also, specific to this year, and part of why I dislike the rules replay: people new to SciOly are competing with people who were prepared for Nationals by last year. Normally there would be a somewhat more even playing field, but it's hard to avoid boring strong returning people without crushing new people's self-esteem.

Adding on to what sb said, there are plenty of invitationals in the country for all levels, and your team doesn't necessarily have to go to the toughest ones. In that regard, this sounds more like something you would want to bring up to your coach rather than complain here. Teams shouldn't be restricted to low level tournaments at the beginning of the season because other teams are not ready, and teams that aren't ready for high level competition are not obligated to participate in them. To reiterate, if you think it is an issue that your coach put your school's lower teams in a mid-level invitational and you thought it was harder than anticipated, it is best that you discuss that with them.

[knightmoves]

Adding on to what sb said, there are plenty of invitationals in the country for all levels, and your team doesn't necessarily have to go to the toughest ones. In that regard, this sounds more like something you would want to bring up to your coach rather than complain here. Teams shouldn't be restricted to low level tournaments at the beginning of the season because other teams are not ready, and teams that aren't ready for high level competition are not obligated to participate in them. To reiterate, if you think it is an issue that your coach put your school's lower teams in a mid-level invitational and you thought it was harder than anticipated, it is best that you discuss that with them.

This is true. My team likes to attend a couple of hard invitationals (to get a realistic gauge of how we might do at regionals) but likes to start with an easier, smaller tournament so that new people get their heads round the logistics and so on in an easier environment, and people have a reasonable chance to start the season with some bling. But that's our team's choice about which competitions to enter.

I imagine it's particularly tough as a new sixth grader (or parent of a sixth grader) with everything remote, because it's harder to get a feel for how things work if you're not hanging out in the team room / watching build events etc.

[sneepity]

(just a thought i had)
if there was a 200 question test
and the first quarter (questions one through 50 )were mid level questions (they weren't too easy or hard)
and the second quarter was really hard
the the third quarter was really easy
(of course it wouldn't be this obvious in reality) wouldn't the kids who skipped some questions in the middle have a benefit, because they got those easy questions right at the end?
i feel like the quality of a test depends on the distribution of hardness throughout it as well
making a short and moderate-hard test is what I prefer because the test takers would be forced to complete all the questions, which i feel like would give you an accurate estimate of how much they know about the event, instead of the score relying more on how smart they are at taking a test (like flipping through the booklet for the easiest questions to complete first)
if there was a skilled team that could've answered those easy questions at the end, but they couldn't because they spent too much time on the ones they had trouble with, I think the score they would get isn't judging their knowledge effectively (because they weren't able to answer all the questions they could!)
also I agree with silver's idea in which teams should go to comps that are suited to their level (especially with builds!!) better prepared teams (some get coaches!) should go to comps that challenge them- some go to wayy too easy ones and they end up beating teams that didn't prepare as well (causing a variety of motivation and recognition problems :( )
I think before going to a hard invy or an easy invy, you should have expectations on how you'll place before you compete. But sometimes, teams just unexpectedly don't do as well as they thought. There is a clear divide between the teams that place really well and teams that get crushed by them in terms of preparedness and practice.
But I do think that going to a hard invitational and getting a test done, just gives you tremendous practice for actual competitions. The experience, and what you should study too.
So it's really better to go to easy ones in the beginning of the season ( I feel like most hard ones happen in the beginning though) and then the other tournaments would just get easy for you (like Knightmoves said).
sorry if this makes no sense, please let me know if you need me to clear up on anything! :o)

[ScoutViolet]

Yes, I do agree with that. However, me being a 6th grader and all, I had practice tests with regular probably state/regionals level. So, I went to Rickards, and boom... 8th graders at my school say it was like nationals. Me: That would explain. But I think that for some people who got like 1 place below me, 23.50 for example on machines out of 286 may be pretty discouraging for them. This could cause them to quit science olympiad and/or get really sad (hopefully none actually happened). I think you shouldn't start of like easy easy, but maybe for the time being at like state levels for invitationals. My regionals is like in February, so there would be plenty of time to go to National Level Invitationals.

Hmm what do you mean by start off? That invitationals should be easier earlier in the season, and harder later on? Or do you mean schools themselves should choose to attend easier invitationals early on, and harder ones later on?

Also, specific to this year, and part of why I dislike the rules replay: people new to SciOly are competing with people who were prepared for Nationals by last year. Normally there would be a somewhat more even playing field, but it's hard to avoid boring strong returning people without crushing new people's self-esteem.

Adding on to what sb said, there are plenty of invitationals in the country for all levels, and your team doesn't necessarily have to go to the toughest ones. In that regard, this sounds more like something you would want to bring up to your coach rather than complain here. Teams shouldn't be restricted to low level tournaments at the beginning of the season because other teams are not ready, and teams that aren't ready for high level competition are not obligated to participate in them. To reiterate, if you think it is an issue that your coach put your school's lower teams in a mid-level invitational and you thought it was harder than anticipated, it is best that you discuss that with them.

There's no option to decide which one is easier, no?

[ScoutViolet]

Yes, I do agree with that. However, me being a 6th grader and all, I had practice tests with regular probably state/regionals level. So, I went to Rickards, and boom... 8th graders at my school say it was like nationals. Me: That would explain. But I think that for some people who got like 1 place below me, 23.50 for example on machines out of 286 may be pretty discouraging for them. This could cause them to quit science olympiad and/or get really sad (hopefully none actually happened). I think you shouldn't start of like easy easy, but maybe for the time being at like state levels for invitationals. My regionals is like in February, so there would be plenty of time to go to National Level Invitationals.

Hmm what do you mean by start off? That invitationals should be easier earlier in the season, and harder later on? Or do you mean schools themselves should choose to attend easier invitationals early on, and harder ones later on?

Also, specific to this year, and part of why I dislike the rules replay: people new to SciOly are competing with people who were prepared for Nationals by last year. Normally there would be a somewhat more even playing field, but it's hard to avoid boring strong returning people without crushing new people's self-esteem.

What I mean by start off is the test writers shouldn't go like hard hard hard or easy easy easy. Maybe a mix would be good...

[ScoutViolet]

Yes, I do agree with that. However, me being a 6th grader and all, I had practice tests with regular probably state/regionals level. So, I went to Rickards, and boom... 8th graders at my school say it was like nationals. Me: That would explain. But I think that for some people who got like 1 place below me, 23.50 for example on machines out of 286 may be pretty discouraging for them. This could cause them to quit science olympiad and/or get really sad (hopefully none actually happened). I think you shouldn't start of like easy easy, but maybe for the time being at like state levels for invitationals. My regionals is like in February, so there would be plenty of time to go to National Level Invitationals.

Hmm what do you mean by start off? That invitationals should be easier earlier in the season, and harder later on? Or do you mean schools themselves should choose to attend easier invitationals early on, and harder ones later on?

Also, specific to this year, and part of why I dislike the rules replay: people new to SciOly are competing with people who were prepared for Nationals by last year. Normally there would be a somewhat more even playing field, but it's hard to avoid boring strong returning people without crushing new people's self-esteem.

Adding on to what sb said, there are plenty of invitationals in the country for all levels, and your team doesn't necessarily have to go to the toughest ones. In that regard, this sounds more like something you would want to bring up to your coach rather than complain here. Teams shouldn't be restricted to low level tournaments at the beginning of the season because other teams are not ready, and teams that aren't ready for high level competition are not obligated to participate in them. To reiterate, if you think it is an issue that your coach put your school's lower teams in a mid-level invitational and you thought it was harder than anticipated, it is best that you discuss that with them.

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.
I don't know, but I think the head coach didn't find anything stating how hard the test would be. My mom is assistant head coach, so I know she didn't know how hard the test would be.

[sneepity]

Yes, I do agree with that. However, me being a 6th grader and all, I had practice tests with regular probably state/regionals level. So, I went to Rickards, and boom... 8th graders at my school say it was like nationals. Me: That would explain. But I think that for some people who got like 1 place below me, 23.50 for example on machines out of 286 may be pretty discouraging for them. This could cause them to quit science olympiad and/or get really sad (hopefully none actually happened). I think you shouldn't start of like easy easy, but maybe for the time being at like state levels for invitationals. My regionals is like in February, so there would be plenty of time to go to National Level Invitationals.

Hmm what do you mean by start off? That invitationals should be easier earlier in the season, and harder later on? Or do you mean schools themselves should choose to attend easier invitationals early on, and harder ones later on?

Also, specific to this year, and part of why I dislike the rules replay: people new to SciOly are competing with people who were prepared for Nationals by last year. Normally there would be a somewhat more even playing field, but it's hard to avoid boring strong returning people without crushing new people's self-esteem.

What I mean by start off is the test writers shouldn't go like hard hard hard or easy easy easy. Maybe a mix would be good...

what do you mean? Your team would have to choose what type of practice they want- hard or easy. There's no medium test. Just choosing what type of practice you need depending on what your requirements are is the best way. Just choose what type you want to go practice.
Also, if all invitationals were mid level, which ones would challenge the teams that are better? There wouldn't be a diverse mix to choose from. Would be bland, in my opinion. And also, there's the problem of high level teams absolutely crushing the smaller teams- a mid level invy would be too easy for them.

[sneepity]

Hmm what do you mean by start off? That invitationals should be easier earlier in the season, and harder later on? Or do you mean schools themselves should choose to attend easier invitationals early on, and harder ones later on?

Also, specific to this year, and part of why I dislike the rules replay: people new to SciOly are competing with people who were prepared for Nationals by last year. Normally there would be a somewhat more even playing field, but it's hard to avoid boring strong returning people without crushing new people's self-esteem.

Adding on to what sb said, there are plenty of invitationals in the country for all levels, and your team doesn't necessarily have to go to the toughest ones. In that regard, this sounds more like something you would want to bring up to your coach rather than complain here. Teams shouldn't be restricted to low level tournaments at the beginning of the season because other teams are not ready, and teams that aren't ready for high level competition are not obligated to participate in them. To reiterate, if you think it is an issue that your coach put your school's lower teams in a mid-level invitational and you thought it was harder than anticipated, it is best that you discuss that with them.

There's no option to decide which one is easier, no?

sorry for the double post!
But you can research a bit about the invitational. Or just pop in here and read up on some old forums- most have feedback from users who took the tests. You can even ask some of the users about them, and I'm sure they would be more than happy to let you know! Then you can meet with your coach and discuss about the invitational.

[sneepity]

What I mean by start off is the test writers shouldn't go like hard hard hard or easy easy easy. Maybe a mix would be good...

I feel what you are not understanding is that the same test is easy to some teams and hard to others. The test writer can't make the test the same perceived difficulty to every team.

Of course, test writers should try to have both easy and hard questions, but what you think is too hard might be a good difficulty for the majority of teams at an invitational. They are not expected to tailor test difficulty to you. The percentage you get on a test doesn't matter; SciOly isn't about getting a grade, and you will almost never get what you consider a good grade. The test writer's goal is to write a test that best separates teams and encourage learning, not cater to students' egos.
That's why it's important to ask around, read forum posts, read the tournament website, etc. to figure out which invitationals fit your needs best.

I have noticed that smaller invitationals are beginning to disappear with online, and that some powerhouse teams are attending pretty much every invitational.

i feel like the quality of a test depends on the distribution of hardness throughout it as well
making a short and moderate-hard test is what I prefer because the test takers would be forced to complete all the questions, which i feel like would give you an accurate estimate of how much they know about the event, instead of the score relying more on how smart they are at taking a test (like flipping through the booklet for the easiest questions to complete first)
if there was a skilled team that could've answered those easy questions at the end, but they couldn't because they spent too much time on the ones they had trouble with, I think the score they would get isn't judging their knowledge effectively (because they weren't able to answer all the questions they could!)

I agree! On my tests, I try to order questions in roughly-increasing difficulty, and my test instructions remind students to skip questions they get stuck on.

But I do think that going to a hard invitational and getting a test done, just gives you tremendous practice for actual competitions. The experience, and what you should study too.

I agree with this as well. Going to invitationals harder than you are prepared for offers many benefits - what is important, though, is having realistic expectations instead of complaining that the test writer should have written to your preparation level instead.