National test discussion

[abusiverice]

However, I think possibly one screw-up that we had in our device portion could have been what costed us a medal at nats, which is unfortunate.

6th place got 96.48 total, 7th got 95.95.

LOL my bad.

[chalker]

Also, would it be possible to see the raw scores for It's About Time for the top 6? )

93.52
91.21
90.61
89.34
88.91
88.58

[Techsam]

Also, would it be possible to see the raw scores for It's About Time for the top 6? )

93.52
91.21
90.61
89.34
88.91
88.58

Very interesting. I thought the test was well put together, and I even took the national test from 2010. My score on that test would have placed 2nd at nationals that years and only a fraction of a point from first. I wonder if we messed up our clock that put us in 12th place.

[asdfqwerzzz2]

Hey Chalker, I'm unsure if you even have access to this or the ability to disclose this, but what was the point distribution among the top 6 astronomy teams?

69.5
68
63
62.5
61.5
60

A little bummed that we were just half a point off for an additional place, but that's extra motivation for next year. Thanks for posting the results!

[Intj]

Are the efficiencies for the top 6 bridges also available?

[Unome]

Fossils: This was a very good test; there were 19 stations covering a broad range of material from the rules, good pacing so that to do well you had to be fast, and a variety of questions, from easyish to difficult, so that some stations we finished with some (~20 seconds) time left over, and others we didn't finish at all (as said above, dinosaurs )

5/5

Simple Machines: As said in the above post, this test was too easy. It required very superficial knowledge and basic calculations; we only had to reference the binder twice throughout the whole test, and finished early even after thoroughly checking it. Most likely we got 2-3 questions wrong, so as RontgensWallaby said above, the placings came down to how well teams did on the lever portion (which was the reason we managed to do well on easy tests at all; our lever method has been strong enough to score 45-48 out of 50 for even the most inexperienced competitors since last January). However, I would add that the rest of the event was run very well; the supervisors gave specific instructions for everything, so I never had to ask how to write the ratios, how many significant figures to use (or whether to use them at all), how to stop the lever portion timer, etc, which I would normally have to ask at most other competitions.

4/5

Bio-Process Lab: This was a superb test, directly to the rules (of course, since it was written by the Biology Rules Committee Chair), well paced, and very good difficulty (we only answered about 80% of the questions, yet we still got 4th). This shows exactly what a Bio-Process Lab test should be, since as most of you know, this event is rarely run well.

5/5

Meteorology: I'm not sure how a difficult Meteorology test should be written, so I'm not sure what to say, but my impression of the test was that it was too easy (although not necessarily for me, since that's one of my weaker events); it was the length of our state test, except with less multiple-choice, and no questions that I can remember were very difficult.

4/5

Anatomy: This test was a good example of how not to write (or more specifically, how to not write) a test. The test was the Division C Nebraska state test, printed out of order and recycled from an answer key. Most of the answers were blanked out, but badly, leaving much of the section for the Integumentary short answer questions too dark to write in; additionally, some answers were not blanked out, some questions were blanked out, and some questions referenced a diagram that did not exist, so the proctors said those would be thrown out. However, the end of the test was not printed, including half of a matching section, and for those questions which were missing the correct answers in the matching section, they just told us to "do our best," which to me appears to say that they graded that part.

2/5

Wait, in Bio, you only anwered 80% of the questions? My partner and I answered 89% of the test and got 14th. We probably did something wrong, but the test was a good test.

Approximately; it was definitely somewhere between 80% and 90%, and I am reasonably certain that we completed fully no more than two stations.

[anagene]

Am loving this thread. Can't wait for individual/raw scores.

[syo_astro]

I think everyone should not be literally asking Chalker for every single score available. Alright, if the nats people all decide to release it it's on them . But honestly, it is not, and should not be, essential to see the scores for everything (even builds). Sure, some people like it for motivation, but please try to be reasonable when asking Chalker stuff, as we all know he's a busy man . Just keep to the discussions of what the tests were like please .

[bernard]

Are the efficiencies for the top 6 bridges also available?

Top there were ~3600, ~3500, ~3200, and seventh was 2456.

[ptkid]

Green Generation: We studied a lot for the test but, after finishing, my partner and I thought that the test was hard. Since it was clearly difficult for everyone, we knew that it just depended on how much everyone else studied to see where we placed. Other than the basic emphasis on legislation, we felt a time crunch on the majority of the stations and we were overjoyed with our end result. This test was a ton times better than my state test.

Entomology: Finally, a challenging test. 100x better than last year's test. Like someone said earlier, props to the National Proctor for making a difficult test that included questions from information that was not inside the Audobon. My partner and I definitely felt a time crunch, unfortunately not finishing the dichotomous key station and then forgetting about it. But, I was happy to end this event with a good test on a good note.

Disease Detectives: I do not know if I just got much better at the event but, for some reason, I felt no time crunch this year. Despite it's long length, I felt that the questions were easier than normal and faster to get through. After completing both the sections with 10 minutes to spare, we checked through the majority of the test and corrected some answers. I thought my section on Ebola was particularly easy. Other than the 8 questions about environmental vs infectious vs both, my partner and I were fairly confident when we completed the test.