Nationals Event Discussion

[Fyren]

Just like previous years. List your events, what went well, and what could have been better.

Topic locked until after the Awards Ceremony on Monday, May 24, 2021 at 5:00 PM PDT.

[Lei0]

I guess I'll start this off?

Chemistry Lab (11th)
For anyone who took this test, you probably know what I'm going to say. For those who didn't, here's the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Good (Click to Show Hidden Text)

This was a fairly long test (130 questions). It was completely on topic, and the difficulty came in going fast with accuracy. There were some content questions near the beginning of the test that were easy if you had studied, but hard if you haven't. The writer clearly wrote this test with the intention of differentiating teams based on speed, which is a fairly reasonable Nationals choice.

The Bad (Click to Show Hidden Text)

Many of the questions were quite weird. Most of the beginning few questions had answer choices such as "no one really knows" and completely made up terms such as "ole mole" and "mole multiplier". Additionally, some of the questions themselves were weird, such as asking for the term that describes when the amount of dissolved solute is equal to the amount of undissolved solute in a solution, or the concentration unit that was calculated by dividing moles solute over moles solute minus moles solvent. As far as I know, there's no correct answer for either of the mentioned questions, so my partner and I just put "no one really knows" because we thought that was the best answer.

The Ugly (Click to Show Hidden Text)

Retrospectively (since I don't remember the test exactly), about 75% of the test consisted of plug and chug calculations about the simplest values -- molar mass, molality, molarity, and very basic titrations. While a couple of these questions would be okay to deal with, writing these as most of the questions was not a good move. In essence, this reduced the event from knowing about complex chemistry problems and quasi-real life laboratory situations to who could punch numbers in a calculator the quickest. My partner and I are relatively good at chemistry, and we've had few issues when practicing on invitational tests this year from BirdSO, BEARSO, etc., and those high quality tests/hard chemistry problems were what we expected going into the test. Needless to say, we were heavily disappointed.

Overall, this was the Nationals test that I was disappointed the most by. My partner and I didn't expect to win the event, by any measure, but we expected to do reasonably well. I know that I don't have much to complain about, since 11th is still pretty good, but my main issue, and many other teams would sympathize with me, is the testing experience. Taking a high quality test, no matter how one does, is always preferable over taking a low quality test, even if one would do better. Science Olympiad is first and foremost about the science, and less about the olympiad. For me, this test did not meet that mission.
Rating: 2/10

Experimental Design (11th)
There's really not much to say here! Experimental Design is a hard event to mess up when tournaments are in person, and even more so digitally. The event supervisors did a great job running this event as smoothly as possible given the parameters (imagine actually conducting an experiment this year!!) and the topic (separating pepper from a mixture of salt and pepper) was hard, maybe somewhat unexpected, but definitely on par with what a nationals experiment should be. I'm happy with how we placed in this event, and satisfied with the overall testing experience. Looking forwards to future in person Experimental Design events!
Rating: 10/10

Fossils (30th)
This was by far the best nationals test I've taken. Granted, I didn't prepare very much and neither did my partner (we also did Chemistry Lab together and decided to prioritize that), so I can't really complain about how we did, but the test itself was phenomenal. It was long (195 questions) and had many difficult questions -- you had to really know your stuff to finish, and to be accurate with it. I also appreciated the photos of each specimen, since the pictures were clear and looked like actual pictures of actual fossils, not from the internet. We didn't go into this test with the highest of expectations for our placement, but it was nevertheless a satisfying Nationals test. Kudos to the Fossils event supervisor team!
Rating: 10/10

Overall (22nd)
This year was hard for many reasons, for reasons both related to Science Olympiad and not, but I'm proud of our team for soldiering through the year and finishing strong at 371 points and 22nd place. I'll admit, the mood after awards ended and we only had one medal across our team, but I was stoked after reading the results spreadsheet. To everyone that competed this season: Science Olympiad isn't about the medals or the placements, it's about the experiences we gain and the information we absorb. It's about that one Regionals medal motivating us to keep studying and eventually win Nationals the next year. It's about the excitement we feel for science, and the memories that we create. So, why does it matter if you or I didn't medal at Nationals this year?

Thank you to everyone involved in hosting this tournament, and for the hours of hard work put in to making this year's Nationals as similar as possible to a normal year! Fingers crossed that Caltech 2022 soon reverses their decision to host online...

[will0416]

I guess I'll start this off?

This'll be a fun one...

Chem Lab (1st)

See the post above for reasoning on why this test was terrible. My biggest gripes were that there were huge chunks of the test that were repetitive (a.k.a. the same exact question being asked 10 times in a row with numbers slightly altered each time) and that the test lacked any need for critical thinking whatsoever. Scioly tests should not be 100%able like this one was. It's cool that we won, but I don't like the circumstances it took for us to achieve that result. Besides the decent length, a chem test can literally not get worse than this.

Rating: 1/10

Codebusters (5th)

No problems with the test content here. Obviously there were issues with implementing Toebes (and I didn't really appreciate being accused of some stuff), so my experience overall was not so stellar. If I could've changed anything about the test, I would've made the point values more representative of the time commitment each cipher should take. Test-taking was the real problem with this one, not the test itself.

Rating: 4/10

Sounds of Music (2nd)

Another disappointing test. Not nearly as atrocious as Chem Lab, but there was once again barely any opportunity for problem solving or critical thinking on this. It was the binder bash of all binder bashes, but I could still appreciate that the test addressed topics that are nearly never touched on in the event like speaker mechanics. At least it was a refreshing test to take.

Rating: 7/10

Boomilever (2nd)

I'm simply the brawn of our operation here (stabilizer, sand pourer, bucket handler, etc.), so all credit is due to my builder friend. Wish we could've won but I wouldn't have changed anything about how the event was run (our supervisor was literally the nicest guy ever, rip his Zoom crashing three times tho).

Rating: 10/10

Overall (1st)

We did it. I'll save the emotions for an intra-team post, but I will say that it feels great to be on top after a long season. Go Comets.

[donjuanpond]

I don't know if this is for Div C only or something, but if it isn't then here's my opinions:
NOTE: I haven't gone to nationals before, so I don't have a good metric of what is a good benchmark. I say a test is too hard or too easy based on my own skill level, not based on anything else, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. This reason is also why I won't be providing number scores, because I don't want to say a test is good or bad if I don't know what a good or bad test looks like. Also, if it isn't already clear, I'm in division B.

Dynamic Planet (3rd)

This was a hard test. I honestly didn't have the slightest clue how to do a solid 1/4 of the questions, and I ended up just using common sense and attempts at memory to solve them. Lots of numerical / calculation problems so that's always fun, except for when they are so ridiculously confusing and complicated that you feel tired from just looking at it. I think it was a nice, challenging test, but probably a little too advanced for Div B. Once again, I don't know how hard a nationals test was supposed to be, so take note of that. I was very surprised that I did well, I thought I bombed.

Water Quality (2nd)

As compared to the DP test which was a difficult confusing task, this test was pathetically easy (no offence meant). I remember being asked a question about estuaries and if they were nurseries of the sea - this is the type of question you get asked in casual invitationals, not national level. The rest of the test, aside from the simple beginning, was slightly more difficult. I liked being asked some questions about PFAS, because I put a whole section about PFAS in my note sheet so it felt worth it. The animal questions were a little simple (i.e., it asked about the banded coral shrimp dance thing), but the test otherwise covered most topics in the rules / syllabus. I thought that I would have done well point-wise, but it felt a little too simple, like there was some little tricks that made some of the questions different, so I was paranoid after submitting it.

Overall (team) (12th)

[will0416]

Congrats to everyone, especially Mason one of my favorite teams in the country you guys earned that championship
Unfortunately the tests weren't as good as Mason's results.

Circuit Lab (5th)

Quality was pretty good, but the test was far too easy. The hardest (and only) circuit analysis problem was a single question with two sources, two resistors, and told you to use superposition. Nothing egregious except the lack of difficulty. Typical of a Nats physics event.

6.5/10

Codebusters (17th)

I was so happy they decided to use the Toebes interface until I realized everything was untested and it became the poop-show I expected it to become. Quotes were okay, but like Will already said, the ES seems to be out-of-touch with how long each cipher actually takes and their relative difficulties. As for implementation, we were so angry with the whole timed-starting-at-beginning-of-block thing that we basically just raged through the test and didn't even attempt the pats, which is why we didn't get any cheating accusations for doing the pats efficiently. With all the issues it had, this event should have been trialed, and I am disappointed that it wasn't. This has probably been the worst year of Codebusters out of all my four years of doing it, and I am dreading next year. Please please please event supervisors learn how to write decent tests (this test was decent in terms of quotes) and if we are going to continue competing online, there needs to be some work done to make the competitor experience good. It has been exhausting getting bad code test after bad code test and tech issue after tech issue in one of the normally most fun events that SciOly has to offer.

3.5/10

Detector Building (8th)

Disclaimer: I hate this event and I am sick of doing it.
Test had some good questions, but was quite short compared to the amount of time we got. Also, a couple complaints about the device testing:
1) There was no indication of whether or not we were supposed to calibrate before we started or during our ten-minute period since Nationals-level is normally supposed to be a twenty-minute calibration period. I chose to not calibrate at all because I despise this event, it was a trial, and my build was good enough.
2) The event supervisor chose water temperatures beyond the maximum 75 degrees Celsius in the rules.

6/10

Dynamic Planet (7th)

Not many complaints here, not the hardest test, not the easiest test, good quality. Like Detector, I'm kind of sick of the topic (oceans are nice but two years felt too long). Plus I got to do it with my favorite person in the world, so that made things better.

8/10

Geologic Mapping (10th)

Another solid test, I enjoyed scouring over the big map (of which the 3' x 4' printout is now hanging on the wall by my bed). Good quality, like DP not too hard, not too easy. I've come to enjoy GeoMaps more than DP too.

8.5/10

Machines (3rd)

Too easy in my opinion, but overall quality was good. Basically the same situation as Circuits.

6.5/10

Overall (3rd)
This season has been depressing, to say the least. Nothing memorable (at least in a good way) from any competitions, and the rules replay didn't help make this season anymore fun. All my good experiences with this year were with the team (both of mine, coaching was some of the best stuff I had this year), and I'm glad I got to have those now that we're pretty much all vaccinated. I am glad this season is over. Very satisfied with 3rd place overall considering how sick of everything all of us were. I hope next year turns out more eventful.

Tim

[Kylari04]

Congrats to everyone who competed today!

Astronomy (3rd):
I thought that the test was solid. Although I didn't really get a look at the calculation questions, the DSO section was definitely challenging without being impossible. This was also the first tournament I saw using JS9, but this section was fine if you knew how to use the software. The only issue I can think of is that the ES used a lot of the same images as the publically available 2020 national test, meaning that teams who did take this test had a huge advantage over those who didn't.

Rating: 10/10


Designer Genes (14th):
The test was definitely long enough, with the back end of the test being more challenging than the front. However, I did think it was a little on the easier side, especially considering past Designer tests from GGSO or MIT. I also didn't expect the law/policy questions at the end, which I guess falls under "genomics and metagenomics in medicine and health", but this part just seemed like trivia rather than a test of genetics itself. I also wish there was a little more challenging short answer section since most of the questions were mostly multiple choice.

Rating: 7.5/10

Disease Detectives (22nd):
The test was definitely long as promised, but the point distributions seemed a little weird to me. Having ten-point questions as well as one-point questions in the same test was a little weird. The event supervisor also informed us during the event that they had made a mistake with one of the tables (they put 2068 when they meant 1068) which forced me to redo all my calculations for that section. I did enjoy the use of real-world data and the relation to the current pandemic. I also did really appreciate the lack of subjective questions which are always a little hard to grade and can be somewhat biased.

Rating: 7/10


Experimental Design (13th):
Not many comments here, since the event was run very smoothly and everything was very clear. The experiment was a little weird, but it definitely worked and was a clever use of the given materials, especially considering that the event supervisor had to ensure all teams were able to access the same things.

Rating: 9/10

Gravity Vehicle (24th):
My partner and I were a little disappointed our car didn't perform well on the day we recorded it, but I think the national board did a good job modifying this event to accommodate for the online format. However, I think that the removal of the time aspect this year made the event less exciting/challenging. A lot of the difficulty with Gravity Vehicle was balancing the speed of the car with accuracy since faster cars tend to skid more (which introduces imprecision). This year, it would have been most ideal to make the shortest ramp possible to get the most accurate car, which although is a challenge, is less difficult than the 2020 rules. I hope that next year the rules will shift back to this design.

Rating: 8/10

Protein Modeling (10th):
The test for this was good. Although on the short side (45 questions), we thought the test covered the fundamentals and important parts of the protein modeling event. However, I have definitely taken much harder tests (e.g. MIT or States), so I was a little disappointed with the difficulty level. Despite this, I did enjoy the test and event and will be sad to see it go next year/

Rating: 8/10


Overall (15th):
This season was definitely not the season I was hoping for. With all the tournaments online, it didn't capture the same spirit of excitement that Science Olympiad normally has. However, I am glad they were able to have something for us this year instead of canceling the season entirely. Here's hoping next year will be better than this year and that tournaments will be in-person! Get your vaccine if you can and encourage your friends and family!

[EwwPhysics]

Congrats everyone who competed on Saturday!


Protein Modeling (1st):
Overall, this test was quite short, only about 40-50 questions. I did the jmol section, which was relatively long (worth 50% of the score). For the most part, questions were pretty standard. Some questions relating to the function of the proteins (eg. role of cysteine in adenosine deaminase) were kind of tricky. From what I heard from my partners, the non-jmol part of the test had some wack questions, but wasn't especially bad. Overall, a more comprehensive test would have been nice.
7.5/10

Disease Detectives (4th):
Wow. I was really surprised to medal in this since we're not that good at disease. My guess is that the distribution wasn't great since all of the questions were multiple choice; I would have like to see more free-response, especially for the mathy stuff. However, I did think that the length of the test was very nice (my partner and I finished but I can imagine that a lot of teams did not).
7/10

Designer Genes (17th):
I was a bit disappointed with my placement as I had thought that this was the one event I had a chance at medalling in, but I'm super happy about my other events so it's ok ! The test was... fine. I was definitely hoping for something more difficult, but it's also far from the worst genes test I've taken this season. Like Kylari said, the trivia near the end was kinda :/. There were a lot of free questions (identifying codominance vs. incomplete dominance and stuff like that) and barely any that required any thought. I was also hoping for more biotech since I had been studying a lot for that, but I guess that's more of a personal thing.
8/10

WIDI (46th):
lol.
Really difficult and having to use pictures didn't help. I made the mistake of trying to describe some details that just ended up confusing my partner and probably cost us at least 20 places (sorry @ my partner ). I have no major complaints about the WIDI itself except for its size (not everyone has a huge surface to build on...).
9/10

Overall (13th):
From what I've heard from my teammates, test quality overall was not great (although from what I understand, this is true at nationals every year). I really liked how they did the opening/awards ceremonies (speakers didn't take too much time, parade of states was cute, etc.). It really sucks that this season had to be so different from other years, but I look forward to [hopefully] attending some in-person tournaments next year. Congrats to everyone who made it through this season!

[nobodynobody]

Astronomy: 6th
I can't say I'm super satisfied with this ranking, but I'm still happy with it nonetheless . Anyway, I felt like section C was too short, and the majority of the section was basic calculations. Considering the difficulty and quality of tests the event supervisors have each put out before, I was expecting it to be much more difficult. I could tell the DSO section was very well written. Otherwise, I had the same concern as kylari with the similarities between this test and the 2020 test.

Digital structures: 4th
I wasn't expecting anything different from this, everything went perfectly smooth

Sounds of Music: 2nd
I like how long the test was, as my partner and I scrambled the last 3 minutes guessing on so many mc questions. Also enjoyed the large music theory section and doing the calculations. I could see a lot of unique questions and topics I have never heard of before, so good job to the test writers.

Write it Do it : 6th
Arguably my best achievement, I could not be happier to place in the event notorious for dragging the best schools down. I cant even remember the last time i did widi, but i think model was pretty long and unique, i think. Implementing WIDI for the national tournament (which is the first time a majority of teams has done widi this year) and releasing the materials beforehand was a questionable decision, but its much better than the write it draw it that was previously planned.

Team: 1st
Yay i love my teammates

[aakoala]

Congratulations to everyone who competed! No matter what you placed, you still did amazing!

The following events are from Division B. (You can probably tell from Crime Busters and Road Scholar)

Crime Busters: 8th
This test was your average Crime Busters test. This year, Crime Busters was a very depressing event because instead of observing baking soda react wildly with hydrochloric acid, you have the word "fizz" on a chart. However, I believe that the event supervisor(s) pulled this event off pretty well!

Overall, 9/10

Dynamic Planet: 13th
I don't see many people talking about this test, so here goes.
First of all, I will have to say that I actually enjoyed this test. 40 questions, approximately 30 of which had 3 parts, two of which were 1-2 sentences, and one of which had a 3-4 sentence response describing your observations.
However, I do not think that this test accurately represented the event. For example, Dynamic Planet is supposed to have questions about physical oceanography, such as waves and wave motion. There was exactly one question on wave motion, which was calculating the speed of a wave. Additionally, this test had only one question about geology, which was simply an underwater topo profile.
In my opinion, this test did not accurately reflect what this event should look like. The event supervisors are accomplished oceanographers, yet their field of study in oceanography is much more related to chemical oceanography, which took 80% of the test.

Overall, 5/10

Road Scholar: 6th
In my opinion, the part of the test that I did (Topographic map questions and the "map draw") was extremely easy. This test did not have external maps, meaning that they had to zoom in on parts of the map for you to answer questions. When asking questions about "What is the contour interval," you should at least be provided with the whole map, rather than a picture showing ONLY the contour interval.
The "map draw" questions were very interesting though. Instead of drawing your own map, the instructions for drawing the map were given and constructed, and we were asked to point out errors in the map.

Overall, 6/10

Water Quality: 6th
This HAS to be the worst Water Quality test I've taken.
One thing that I liked about the test was the even distribution of points between all 3 sections of the event. (40 points for Ecology, 40 for Organism ID, and 40 for Water Monitoring)
Part 1 (Ecology) was dreadful. They gave extremely basic questions like "Estuaries are the ____ of the sea." Additionally, there were no food web questions, which aren't required, but usually on a Water Quality test.
Part 2 (Organism ID) was ok. The pictures were clear, yet the questions about the organism could probably be found by a google search. There were no applied knowledge questions in this section, which was very disappointing. Additionally, we were asked to find the average length of fish, the average mass of fish, and many other weird things which are fine for practicing science skills, but not at all applicable to the Water Quality Organism ID section.
Part 3 (Water Monitoring) was atrocious. First and foremost, basically, 50% of this section was BOD plugging and chugging. Not fun. Second, we were unpleasantly surprised by the lack of wastewater treatment questions, which tends to contribute to this section.

Overall, 2/10

Nationals was an underwhelming experience.
Hours of practicing, competing, and winning regionals and state tournaments, and the excitement of being able to attend nationals, all to be met by some tests that strayed from the rules.
The award ceremony was pretty nice though.
Nevertheless, I would like to give my gratitude to the people who could make nationals this year possible. It was tough this year, and I applaud tournament directors, event supervisors, and all volunteers that could make this possible. Thank you.

Congrats on my team for getting 14th, as well as winning the Spirit Award! Go Golden Bears!

Overall, 6/10

[shadow19]

Anat: 21st
The test was quite long and touched on a good variety of topics. Unfortunately, I seem to be p washed at bio >: |.
8/10

Designer Genes: 21st
I felt as if the test writer made great efforts to write challenging questions, but missed with absolutely no math and heavy trivia/current event topics, which I wasn't quite as used to. Good length, but topics could be a bit better.

6.5/10

Fossils: 5th
Great test! Not too long, questions required some thinking and hit on a broad range of topics. I missed the typical math questions/gen es questions, though.

9/10

Orni: 6th
The test was wayyy too short, and too trivia/history-based. There was a huge focus on conservation and lacked the hard bio q's/fun id.

6.5/10

Team: 19th
pretty nice end to a longgg season! would've hoped to do a tad better, and hope to compete at nats again next year!