They put out rulers when we were supposed to estimate.John Richardsim wrote:Don't worry, you'll always be a winner in my book. How did they mess up the test?GoofyFoofer wrote:In the SoCal state competition, the tester people messed up the test, so they didn't count that event in the awards. I was gonna win, too!
See, not as bad as our state, who put estimation and measurement on the same paperGoofyFoofer wrote:They put out rulers when we were supposed to estimate.John Richardsim wrote:Don't worry, you'll always be a winner in my book. How did they mess up the test?GoofyFoofer wrote:In the SoCal state competition, the tester people messed up the test, so they didn't count that event in the awards. I was gonna win, too!
I may have already said this, but I'll say it again; our state used the customary system for some of them. That is the most blatant rule-breaking I have ever seen.awesome90220 wrote: See, not as bad as our state, who put estimation and measurement on the same paper
What!?!? How did they...who...how...why...Unome wrote:I may have already said this, but I'll say it again; our state used the customary system for some of them. That is the most blatant rule-breaking I have ever seen.awesome90220 wrote: See, not as bad as our state, who put estimation and measurement on the same paper
Our two were drilled on sig figs, including multiplying. Lots of practice and they were nailing it before Nat's and I am assuming that they did the sig figs right at Nats and that other teams did too. It's too easy of a skill to learn and master not to.Sciolapedia wrote:Also, I doubt that most of the teams remembered to use significant figures on part 2 when they were multiplying and dividing numbers.
I have never been able to suceed in part 2 (And that usually determines whether we get a 1st or a 36thknittingfrenzy18 wrote:The National event wasn't ridiculous, but I do hope they were being nice and consistent with the water too, making sure that it was re-calibrated/re-measured each period, and since they didn't have us go over the same objects (though identical, they weren't exactly the same), I hope they judged each of part 1 and part 2 by the objects in the respective rooms.
But yeah, it was pretty organized. It was sort of like that at States, and I'm pretty sure it couldn't get much better.
Was it just me, or part 2 and 3 of Metric Mastery in general are pretty hard to screw up? Anyone who spends 2 hours on MM can probably get an A or A+ on any part 2 and 3.
Anyways, I'm glad I got to know a very important part of standard science these days, and I'm so pumped for Picture This next year. My sister and I are psychic.
)Ugh - when we first worked on MM, it seems like we concentrated on the estimation and I sort of left the measurement out, assuming they were "doing it right." Then, I discovered they were NOT being careful on measuring. They'd put the ruler down and somehow scoot it over a little this way or that and zero would be in the wrong place. Oh well. So, we drilled that too. And made sure they knew formulae such as volume of sphere, surface area of a pyramid, etc. I think sometimes the teams would put all their effort into estimation but then goof up the measurement.Unome wrote: I have never been able to suceed in part 2 (And that usually determines whether we get a 1st or a 36th
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
