National Test Discussion

[varunscs11]

Fossils - 3rd

The test was very similar to last years exam and some of the questions were exactly the same as last year. Specimens were nice, which made ID very easy. I enjoyed the modes of preservation station. I was super happy that the proctor took my comments from last year and actually implemented them into the exam (i.e. the foot length calculation, the trivia - WI state fossil, etc). Overall, the exam was pretty easy.

Rating: A-

Invasive Species - 5th

The test was 100 questions long which was a decent length. I wish the test was longer and harder because most of the questions were very standard and common information. It was great that there was some trivia.

Rating: B

Green Generation - 8th

The test was shorter than last year's which made everything more competitive. Most of the tasks presented were reading charts and graphs. I wish that the questions about soil orders did not involve giving the participants the description of the soil order. There was no math on the exam which was surprising considering one of the topics is population growth. But the exam was good - it more or less followed the rules, wasn't too easy, and didn't have long answer. I also noticed that none of the medalists from last year medaled this year which is interesting.

Rating: A

Experimental Design - 20th

This event sucked 100%. First of all the lady wasted our time by giving a 10-15 minute talk about how she hates straight line graphs. We did our experiment by changing the amount of yeast present while keeping the biologic material (potato flakes) and the H2O2 amount the same. We ran an exponential regression and conducted an ANOVA test. Quite frankly I don't really see how the event was graded because we have consistently gotten 118/120 at MIT, Cornell, and other invitationals yet at Nationals we got 20th. And unless the 19 teams above us got 119s and 120s or 118s and tied with us, I don't see how we got 20th unless the rubric wasn't actually used. Like we did everything that the rubric asked for and followed the instructions in the rubric explanation. This event promotes a narrow way of thinking and formulaic writing. Also, the event asks for a regression analysis which usually is not that useful. The rubric does not reward us for conducting higher level statistical analyses such as ANOVA and chi squared. Furthermore, the event forces competitors to conduct quantitative experiments. The event should either be drastically changed for next year or be eliminated.This event flat out fails.

Rating: F

[ampy1234567]

Overall, I thought my events were well-written and well-run.
Disease Detectives (6th):
What I expected from the CDC, a lot of high quality thinking stuff in the format of two big problems (some fungus and something about poisoning). The first problem was quite a bit longer than the second and the first had a lot more math and the second had almost none, which definitely worked to the advantage of our strategy. It seemed on the easier side, but still, great test.
Dynamic Planet (2nd):
Fixed the issues with last year's test; it was a lot longer, had more free choice and math, and seemed much more legit and less bs-y. Me and my partner split the test and barely had 5 minutes to check. We thought we had screwed up really bad but got 2nd, so idk how to judge difficulty very well but it seemed about right. Overall high quality, and I also thought it was good that they included a survey at the end of the test.
Crave the Wave (8th):
Amazing test, and this is even with my almost-medaled-but-didn't bias; probably the most difficult I've ever seen for any event in any test. The test was split into 10 stations of 4 minutes 30 seconds each, and while this seems easy it actually put tons of time pressure on us. The test, even without this time pressure, was really hard (even made the first, supposedly easiest station difficult with the last question); it tested things like non-standard P and S wave calculations, parabolic mirrors, Doppler shift and emission spectra, and radioactive decay. Lots of math and application, again a thing I think is really good for a Crave test. TBH it seems like a test I would want to write myself, and I'm still pretty disappointed in not getting that medal; regardless, congrats to Longfellow for getting 1st (which is what I predicted on the prediction contest lol).
I also wanted to note the kind of weird similarity between this test and the Boyceville Crave test (both 10 big questions, and very difficult for the level of competition, and both had the steel bar Young's modulus thing. Even the same cover sheet).
Btw, if anyone could provide raw scores for the top 10 that would be great.
Fossils (22th):
Pretty standard fare for nationals; medium difficulty and well-run stations. But I do want to note the second station in which you had to identify about 25 fossils in 4 minutes, and that one of the fossils was worth 1 point and another 15 points despite the difficulty of the two not being that different.

[Uber]

Green Generation (8th)
A short and fairly difficult test (that mining station >.<). There was almost no population growth or calculation questions, which was somewhat unexpected.

Protein Modeling (11th)
Typical MSOE test. Short and mostly easy.

Anatomy and Physiology (12th)
I had to work completely by myself (My partner pointed at the labels), and it was definitely one of the most stressful tests I've taken because of that. It would be a nice length for a two-person team. The questions were really well distributed, and every point was covered. Questions were typical, but the difficulty was sufficient. The integument disease identification were too easy, considering they reused pictures from last year, so that only took 2 or 3 minutes. Muscle identification was nice and tricky because they asked for origins and insertions, but I didn't have enough time to finish it by myself.
Btw, what was that noodle looking thing on the muscle cross section model?

Cell Biology (15th)
It tested scientific skills, which isn't typical for most cell biology tests. First station was a short and simple lab, third station was a fluorescence microscope station, and two other stations had diagram reading. The cell cycle portion focused a bit much on MPF, and had nothing on the mechanisms of mitosis. Overall, the test was towards the easy end, and the questions could have been distributed more evenly.

[DankMcIntosh]

Anatomy (7)- I thought the test was easy for nationals, but my stupid answers (kept down tubercle for tuberosity (OMG, how does the tibia have a tubercle), reversed order of metatarsals) brought me 7th place. I felt like they should have included questions more about skeletal and muscular diseases, foramina of the skull, types of bone cells. But, the microscope questions were good, and the stations were well-written. Congratulations to the top 6 teams and Bearden M.S for winning!

Meteorology (10)- The test was very well written, and covered all aspects of the event. Last year's test was easy, but this year's test was the probably the best test I've seen at Nationals (Shout-out to the ES of the event).

Green Generation (35)- The test was pretty good, again covering most aspects of the event. I don't understand how we got 35th, but overall, a good test.

Also, does anyone what the scores were for Anatomy?

I couldn't agree more SciOly. The meteorology test was really excellent! I thought it was straight forward and covered the rules. It had everything - clouds, skew t, and even an awesome rh question ( )

[ptabraham_nerd01]

Event Reviews (Division B):

- Anatomy: The test was really easy for nationals (4 minutes to answer like 6 questions!).The integumentary system was okay. The diagrams were pretty easy and the diseases were not hard. I did like the microscope questions, which I had never seen in competition before (I think I got a couple of them wrong!). The skeletal system was also okay. I think they could've added more questions on the foramina of the skull (besides the multiple choice question on the foramen magnum). I liked the muscular system models (which I really messed up, especially the hand diagram...whoops!), but they should've added more physiology questions...

- Disease Detectives: The test was good... very similar to previous national tests. I was surprised at our placement.

- Road Scholar: This test was also well written. My partner thought that the student created map was very time consuming. The profiling was really easy. I liked how there was no story to follow.

- Experimental Design: It was a normal test... I really wished I could've brought the fan to awards...

[DankMcIntosh]

Anatomy (7)- I thought the test was easy for nationals, but my stupid answers (kept down tubercle for tuberosity (OMG, how does the tibia have a tubercle), reversed order of metatarsals) brought me 7th place. I felt like they should have included questions more about skeletal and muscular diseases, foramina of the skull, types of bone cells. But, the microscope questions were good, and the stations were well-written. Congratulations to the top 6 teams and Bearden M.S for winning!

Meteorology (10)- The test was very well written, and covered all aspects of the event. Last year's test was easy, but this year's test was the probably the best test I've seen at Nationals (Shout-out to the ES of the event).

Green Generation (35)- The test was pretty good, again covering most aspects of the event. I don't understand how we got 35th, but overall, a good test.

Also, does anyone what the scores were for Anatomy?

I couldn't agree more SciOly. The meteorology test was really excellent! I thought it was straight forward and covered the rules. It had everything - clouds, skew t, and even an awesome rh question ( )

Add: I got 42 in Meteorology

Road scholar (51) was pretty cringe Now, this is coming from a guy that picked this event up right before nationals, but I thought it was crazy! Weird topo map questions, conversion factors, map drawings, and profilings. With a special appearance from boat ramps, oil wells, picnics, and lakes!

[KSSOISLIT]

First time at Nationals!!!

I don't know if I'm should to talk about things like this, as my state is not super competitive, so we don't get many hard tests, but I just wanted to add some input.

Anatomy- I thought the test was way too easy for Nats, but I liked the variety of questions.

Crime Busters- It was the hardest CB test I've ever taken. It was so much for 50 minutes. It was also sort of confusing for my parter and I. We barely wrote an analysis. But I really liked how the test covered so many aspects of the event in so much detail.

[Magikarpmaster629]

Astronomy (7): I was expecting an easy but long test. Most of it did fit this, however near the end there were some really hard questions related to Jean's mass and some other concepts that I didn't get. Still not sure how I got 7th.

Fossils (9): Easy test. Surprisingly slow though; we got through nearly every station with 30 seconds to spare. Somehow it sounded like we (div C) got the easy test and div B got the hard test.

Forensics (16): For some reason their Bunsen burner was giving different results for powder flame test than I had seen during practice, so I panicked. I think I only got about half of the powders, and they didn't even make it into the conclusion. I also don't get how we managed to do well in this.

[Zioly]

First time at Nationals!!!

I don't know if I'm should to talk about things like this, as my state is not super competitive, so we don't get many hard tests, but I just wanted to add some input.

Hey! Yeah, like you, my school and state isn't super competitive, however, I am planning to go SUPER try-hard mode next year, along with National History Day (my school is big on that) and (hopefully) get a couple of metal danglers at nationals!

I only do one study event, Green Generation. The test was perfect! It was amazing how well balanced it was and that was probably due to the station formatting, which I enjoyed. Additionally, the proctor was very kind and amusing and I felt right at home, even if I knew I was going to get what I deserved--in my least focused event.

Ironically, I ended up getting the highest placing in GG than any other event. My bottle rockets kinda failed in terms of time, as I know I would've gotten around 15th place, which is amazing for building events at my school. Oh whale, there's always next year!

By the way, to the powerhouse schools (great job), is it normal for first years to medal at nationals, if they go at all?

[1234alert]

Chemistry Lab (19th): Test was absurdly time-stricken. The concepts were fairly simple for a national test, but the lack of time was huge. I prefer harder tests than those that make you work on the easiest questions for most points. The gas law questions required the most esoteric conversions (Rankin wtf?) and I did not realize this until halfway through station 1. We got like 2/25 on station 1.

Forensics (22nd): Test was on par with other national tests, so I expected to finish only a fraction of the test. Powders went smooth, but observing hairs was kinda iffy that I resorted to my ownership of a cat to identify the hairs (whoops). I worked too slow and wrote a couple of sentences for the analysis. Made a nearly blind guess on the suspect.

Protein Modeling (1st): I am responsible for the on-site model and pre-build model (modeling dude). The on-site model was easy for national standards, only 100 amino acids, and about 80% of it was 2 large alpha helices (3pbl 101-200). I triple checked at multiple angles for the positioning of various landmarks. For pre-build, we attached a dimer as well as amino acids 1-92. Aside from important amino acid sidechains involved in stabilization or domain, we included tetrahydrobiopterin and sepiapterin molecules, and the detachable end part of our model to represent the nonsense mutation. Partners said test was easy like all MSOE tests.