"Consistently could be used to measure difficulty (in which case builds and maybe inquiry would win)" do you mean that builds/inquiry might be better than labsName wrote:Well hard events are hard for everyone and easy events are easy for everyone balancing out. Consistently could be used to measure difficulty (in which case builds and maybe inquiry would win). Average questions wrong really can vary depending on which competition (like MIT vs regionals) and different events are well different. In Fermi for example getting 60-70 percent of the points is usually considered excellent while anything less then 50 percent is usually bad (again depends on competition but this I feel is pretty standard in almost all competitions). On the other hand in some tests near 100 scores can possibly be achieved, while in competitors like MIT 30 percent is pretty good. (Speaking from my own matsci experience). I doubt difficulty of events can really be measured accurately, and difficulty is more of an opinion where it's usually skewed toward the events the people do.JavaScriptCoder wrote:I don't know, because its my first year. If you define the result ranked by average questions wrong, that might work, but I can't find statistics about that. If you define it by polling, then... well, I will be making a poll for subjective ratings. As there was *a little* inherent bias against 8th graders participating in C in my school, I was limited to two events. Of those, i thought materials science was hard, and got 3rd, and I thought chem lab was easy, and got 3rd. So welp...

[you went to the MIT SciOly regional?! so pro...]