Scioly.org

Alex-RCHS wrote:Station tests are way more fun to take than sit-down tests. Prove me wrong.

Actually, 7/7 of the tests I've taken at competition are sit-down tests. That could change this year.

Tailsfan101 wrote:

Alex-RCHS wrote:Station tests are way more fun to take than sit-down tests. Prove me wrong.

Actually, 7/7 of the tests I've taken at competition are sit-down tests. That could change this year.

Just you wait. IMO, they’re much more exciting. Hopefully you take some this year.

In the immortal words of Ferris Bueller:

Station test can be fun... if there's enough space for teams to move, the stations are about equivalent in difficulty and length, there are things at the stations other then a piece of paper, there aren't too many stations to make it unwieldy, and teams are able to keep track of which station is coming next. Most of the time, stations don't meet all of these, and in general pure tests are more fun because there's not as much extraneous stuff going on around you to detract from the event experience. But yes, stations do have the potential to be fun.

I've always preferred getting just one big test to walking around and doing stations. Time constrains stress me out, and for some reason stations feels like you have less time to answer questions. Even though we still get 50 (depending on your event) minutes.

Nerd_Bunny wrote:I've always preferred getting just one big test to walking around and doing stations. Time constrains stress me out, and for some reason stations feels like you have less time to answer questions. Even though we still get 50 (depending on your event) minutes.

Don't even start on station-format tests with no time constraints. Some people finish earlier than others, and wander off to find free stations, making the whole thing a gigantic mess.

whythelongface wrote:

Nerd_Bunny wrote:I've always preferred getting just one big test to walking around and doing stations. Time constrains stress me out, and for some reason stations feels like you have less time to answer questions. Even though we still get 50 (depending on your event) minutes.

Don't even start on station-format tests with no time constraints. Some people finish earlier than others, and wander off to find free stations, making the whole thing a gigantic mess.

That was literally last year's regional R&M test...not only were there no station time limits, but the questions were super easy. We walked out 20 minutes early and won.

Oh, a stations test without time constraints is not what I meant at all. I’ve never taken one but it sounds terrible.

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:Station test can be fun... if there's enough space for teams to move,
I have never personally had trouble with this, I would think it’s pretty rare.

the stations are about equivalent in difficulty and length,
This is ideal, but not necessary in my opinion. Differences in stations are not a big deal unless they’re huge. Part of the fun is assessing the difficulty/length of the station and adjusting your pace accordingly!

there are things at the stations other then a piece of paper,
But a sit-down test *almost* never has non-paper “props”. At least stations have that potential.

there aren't too many stations to make it unwieldy, and teams are able to keep track of which station is coming next.
Both definitely good points and common issues.

Most of the time, stations don't meet all of these, and in general pure tests are more fun because there's not as much extraneous stuff going on around you to detract from the event experience. But yes, stations do have the potential to be fun.

maybe it’s just a personal preference.

The forums are quiet today. Everyone must be getting ready for MIT

Alex-RCHS wrote:Oh, a stations test without time constraints is not what I meant at all. I’ve never taken one but it sounds terrible.

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:Station test can be fun... if there's enough space for teams to move,
I have never personally had trouble with this, I would think it’s pretty rare.

the stations are about equivalent in difficulty and length,
This is ideal, but not necessary in my opinion. Differences in stations are not a big deal unless they’re huge. Part of the fun is assessing the difficulty/length of the station and adjusting your pace accordingly!

there are things at the stations other then a piece of paper,
But a sit-down test *almost* never has non-paper “props”. At least stations have that potential.

there aren't too many stations to make it unwieldy, and teams are able to keep track of which station is coming next.
Both definitely good points and common issues.

Most of the time, stations don't meet all of these, and in general pure tests are more fun because there's not as much extraneous stuff going on around you to detract from the event experience. But yes, stations do have the potential to be fun.

maybe it’s just a personal preference.

It appears to me that alot of people on this forum are missing the true beauty of stations tests. An ideal stations test is one where each station has more questions than a team could possibly ever answer in time, all in a relatively well-distributed difficulty spectrum. Stations tests, in opposition to normal sit-down tests, place emphasis on speed, comprehension, teamwork, and true knowledge. A well-written stations test leaves little to no time for competitors to dig around in their notes/binders for info. It forces competitors to truly know the information in their heart. Additionally, the test of mental endurance in a fast stations test is unlike anything I have ever experienced. Its about moving as thinking as fast as possible, not for the last 2 minutes of the event like in normal test events, but throughout the entire 50 minutes. When I come out of a fast stations test, I literally needed to lie down for 5 minutes and catch my breath and let my heart slow back down. The adrenaline rush is like nothing youve ever experienced before. When everything you've worked towards is on the line and the only thing holding you back is how fast you can physically write/move, you push yourself HARD.
Another component of stations tests that people here are missing is the "Adapt and Overcome" aspect. "There isnt enough room to move between stations. The answer sheet is not labeled clearly. The stations are out of order." Well guess what? Its the same for everyone and if you want to win and be the best, you better think twice about complaining and figure out a plan with your partner on how to approach the situation. Chaos is inherent - the best teams will deal with it quickly and seamlessly transition while the other teams are standing around complaining.

This has been my experience with my partner because when we are competing, we are thinking about all the times we had to wake up and go to school with only 2 hours of sleep because we had been preparing the entire night and we know we owe it to ourselves to do everything we possibly can at the actual competition.

Thats my rant. Curious to hear what others have to say.

windu34 wrote: It appears to me that alot of people on this forum are missing the true beauty of stations tests. An ideal stations test is one where each station has more questions than a team could possibly ever answer in time, all in a relatively well-distributed difficulty spectrum. Stations tests, in opposition to normal sit-down tests, place emphasis on speed, comprehension, teamwork, and true knowledge. A well-written stations test leaves little to no time for competitors to dig around in their notes/binders for info. It forces competitors to truly know the information in their heart. Additionally, the test of mental endurance in a fast stations test is unlike anything I have ever experienced. Its about moving as thinking as fast as possible, not for the last 2 minutes of the event like in normal test events, but throughout the entire 50 minutes. When I come out of a fast stations test, I literally needed to lie down for 5 minutes and catch my breath and let my heart slow back down. The adrenaline rush is like nothing youve ever experienced before. When everything you've worked towards is on the line and the only thing holding you back is how fast you can physically write/move, you push yourself HARD.
Another component of stations tests that people here are missing is the "Adapt and Overcome" aspect. "There isnt enough room to move between stations. The answer sheet is not labeled clearly. The stations are out of order." Well guess what? Its the same for everyone and if you want to win and be the best, you better think twice about complaining and figure out a plan with your partner on how to approach the situation. Chaos is inherent - the best teams will deal with it quickly and seamlessly transition while the other teams are standing around complaining.

This has been my experience with my partner because when we are competing, we are thinking about all the times we had to wake up and go to school with only 2 hours of sleep because we had been preparing the entire night and we know we owe it to ourselves to do everything we possibly can at the actual competition.

Thats my rant. Curious to hear what others have to say.

I know I've posted like a million times in this thread in the last day but I'm sorry: this is 110% accurate and I could not agree more. (seriously, is there a way to like a post?) Fast, difficult station tests are a rush AND a great way of differentiating good teams from great ones.

To add to what windu said, it also forces you to be good at ALL of the subjects. If you're only decent at one station, you might not have the recall to finish it in time, even if you knew all the info. On a sit-down test, you would have gotten those points because you could have sped through other sections that you knew well and used that extra time to flip through notesheets for the parts you didn't know, but on a stations test you have to know everything equally well or you won't be able to answer fast enough to finish everything. So it also emphasizes a well-balanced understanding.