Forensics C

[markuswso17]

This was my second test with the Woz, and I was definitely more prepared this time. I think the test was well written and very difficult, which is to be expected. My only complaint is that the microscope that my team had was really crappy. It was super difficult to focus and the lens was super dirty. It took too long to ID the hairs with the crappy microscope so I basically had to make educated guesses on about 1/2 of the hairs. Otherwise, the test was well-written, the Woz was strict but a good proctor, and I enjoyed taking the test.

Do you remember which station you were at? Kinda curious as to if there were many stations with bad microscopes.

[alleycat03]

This was my second test with the Woz, and I was definitely more prepared this time. I think the test was well written and very difficult, which is to be expected. My only complaint is that the microscope that my team had was really crappy. It was super difficult to focus and the lens was super dirty. It took too long to ID the hairs with the crappy microscope so I basically had to make educated guesses on about 1/2 of the hairs. Otherwise, the test was well-written, the Woz was strict but a good proctor, and I enjoyed taking the test.

Do you remember which station you were at? Kinda curious as to if there were many stations with bad microscopes.

I'm not sure of the number, but our station was the closest to the test graders.

[markuswso17]

This was my second test with the Woz, and I was definitely more prepared this time. I think the test was well written and very difficult, which is to be expected. My only complaint is that the microscope that my team had was really crappy. It was super difficult to focus and the lens was super dirty. It took too long to ID the hairs with the crappy microscope so I basically had to make educated guesses on about 1/2 of the hairs. Otherwise, the test was well-written, the Woz was strict but a good proctor, and I enjoyed taking the test.

Do you remember which station you were at? Kinda curious as to if there were many stations with bad microscopes.

Aw, I wasn't at that table. Seems to be a more wide-spread issue. Not sure if that's good or bad since a lot of people may have had the disadvantage, but it also made the test a little more on luck than I would have liked.

I'm not sure of the number, but our station was the closest to the test graders.

[alleycat03]

Do you remember which station you were at? Kinda curious as to if there were many stations with bad microscopes.

I'm not sure of the number, but our station was the closest to the test graders.

Aw, I wasn't at that table. Seems to be a more wide-spread issue. Not sure if that's good or bad since a lot of people may have had the disadvantage, but it also made the test a little more on luck than I would have liked.

Yeah, I had read somewhere that the microscopes weren't high quality, but I wasn't expecting them to be that bad.

[pikachu4919]

Aw, I wasn't at that table. Seems to be a more wide-spread issue. Not sure if that's good or bad since a lot of people may have had the disadvantage, but it also made the test a little more on luck than I would have liked.

Yeah, I had read somewhere that the microscopes weren't high quality, but I wasn't expecting them to be that bad.

Heh by my senior year I gave up on even trying to use the microscope at some of my competitions (including nats)