National Test Discussion

[efeng]

Disease Detectives (3): Good test, although it was definitely a lot easier and shorter than normal. The entire second case study had 0 math. But, it was a classic CDC test, thus it was a time crunch even if it was shorter than normal. My partner and I ended up not being able to finish 2 questions on sensitivity and specificity from the first case study (thus, 8 points ), because we ran out of time. As to the event supervisor giving out formulas, it really didn't matter because I'm pretty sure everyone knew those formulas anyways? I mean, come on, they are relative risk and odds ratio Overall 9/10.

How would you compare the difficulty to other hard tests like SOUP or MIT? Looking at past Nats tests and from what I've heard about this one I feel like I would've done pretty decently(maybe top 15).

Also I feel like if you're at Nationals and you didn't know the formula for OR or RR then you probably weren't a big enough threat that the extra help would hurt anyone else.

Nationals is (almost) completely different from MIT and other tests. The nationals tests are written by the CDC every year, so they are pretty consistent in terms of content. The test is divided into two parts, and both of them are separate investigations. Then, you basically go through most of the investigation, if not all of it. Also, there is not vocabulary section. Personally, my partner didn't even use our notes sheet (no joke), and got first. So, even you get first at MIT or SOUP because of a good notes sheet, you could bomb at nationals if you don't know or understand how things work in an investigation. One more thing I have to say is that the nationals test is designed to be a "time crunch", or at least for Disease Detectives. This year, however, I felt that the test was shorter than normal. Maybe they didn't finish making the second part of the test, because there was absolutely no math there (for Div B), which was surprising. Anyways, hope you found that useful.

[Tailsfan101]

Disease Detectives (3): Good test, although it was definitely a lot easier and shorter than normal. The entire second case study had 0 math. But, it was a classic CDC test, thus it was a time crunch even if it was shorter than normal. My partner and I ended up not being able to finish 2 questions on sensitivity and specificity from the first case study (thus, 8 points ), because we ran out of time. As to the event supervisor giving out formulas, it really didn't matter because I'm pretty sure everyone knew those formulas anyways? I mean, come on, they are relative risk and odds ratio Overall 9/10.

How would you compare the difficulty to other hard tests like SOUP or MIT? Looking at past Nats tests and from what I've heard about this one I feel like I would've done pretty decently(maybe top 15).

Also I feel like if you're at Nationals and you didn't know the formula for OR or RR then you probably weren't a big enough threat that the extra help would hurt anyone else.

Nationals is (almost) completely different from MIT and other tests. The nationals tests are written by the CDC every year, so they are pretty consistent in terms of content. The test is divided into two parts, and both of them are separate investigations. Then, you basically go through most of the investigation, if not all of it. Also, there is not vocabulary section. Personally, my partner didn't even use our notes sheet (no joke), and got first. So, even you get first at MIT or SOUP because of a good notes sheet, you could bomb at nationals if you don't know or understand how things work in an investigation. One more thing I have to say is that the nationals test is designed to be a "time crunch", or at least for Disease Detectives. This year, however, I felt that the test was shorter than normal. Maybe they didn't finish making the second part of the test, because there was absolutely no math there (for Div B), which was surprising. Anyways, hope you found that useful.

Congratulations efeng on winning DD, me and my partner got 16th, which was the best finish on our whole team! We also barely used our cheat sheet at all, it was just two basic investigations. A well-designed test, I'll say that, my partner did "Are you sure you want to go swimming?" and I did "Drink your Milk". "Drink your Milk" was shorter than the other, plus there was no math involved in it, as you said. On a different note, what did you put for the question that talked about the map of that county? That was the only question we didn't answer.

[efeng]

The maps are called spot maps. The reason why the were centered around the star in the first map was because the people who lived closest to the market were the people who were likely to go, because it was nearby and convenient. The reason why the second map had the cases randomly distributed around the county and the surrounding counties is because there was either a large event which attracted a large population from everywhere (i.e. County Fair, State Fair, etc.), or that the source was evenly distributed among the counties (i.e. supermarkets). Later, it was discovered that it was because of the milk from Supermarket A, and not a large event.

[winchesetr]

Disease Detectives (3): Good test, although it was definitely a lot easier and shorter than normal. The entire second case study had 0 math. But, it was a classic CDC test, thus it was a time crunch even if it was shorter than normal. My partner and I ended up not being able to finish 2 questions on sensitivity and specificity from the first case study (thus, 8 points ), because we ran out of time. As to the event supervisor giving out formulas, it really didn't matter because I'm pretty sure everyone knew those formulas anyways? I mean, come on, they are relative risk and odds ratio Overall 9/10.

How would you compare the difficulty to other hard tests like SOUP or MIT? Looking at past Nats tests and from what I've heard about this one I feel like I would've done pretty decently(maybe top 15).

Also I feel like if you're at Nationals and you didn't know the formula for OR or RR then you probably weren't a big enough threat that the extra help would hurt anyone else.

Eyy Max, if anything is close to a national's test, its typically MIT. However, I would definitely say that this year's MIT test was a more challenging test than this year's Nats test (at MIT we got 10th and didn't finish the test in comparison). SOUP was also a good test, but different in format than a Nats test, so its hard to compare (might try to change that next year - we will see). I would say SOUP is more difficult in terms of raw knowledge and math, while Nats required more critical thinking/problem solving skills. A good mix of both would have been better. We very rarely needed to use our cheat sheet, even in C division.

Chemistry Lab (3): Ok, this was.... interesting. I walked out of that test room in a daze and feeling pretty awful. From what I had heard from other competitors, this was different than previous nats tests. It wasn't that the math or the concepts were difficult. It was that the entire event was a time-crunch. It ranged from 20-40 questions per station for 4 stations of test, and 8 minutes per station. Each question required copious dimensional analysis, and you could not take the test nor the answer sheet apart which was super difficult when your partner was working on a different page than you were. Multiple choice ranged from A-H, and every. single. question. was in Fahrenheight (or Rankine). However, it was nice that they gave us the conversions. We ended up finishing about 1/3 - 1/2 of each station and circling random answers for the rest. That wasn't great. Although the test was super long, I definitely would have appreciated some more in-depth concepts and topics as opposed to just a bunch of math. Oh well, still a great test. You definitely had to know what you were doing going in to it. 8/10

This is actually no different from previous nationals tests, you can check last year's or the year before's.

Jon Aros's Chemistry Lab tests are easily some of the worst quality tests at the National Tournament each year. Our strategy last year, when I got 1st, was to take the previous year's test and literally put it on our cheatsheet because he was known to reuse questions (and he did; about half of the test last year was reused). I'm honestly surprised that he didn't do that this year (from what I've heard) and I hope that this is a step in the right direction, but unfortunately until someone replaces Aros I don't see the quality of Chemistry Lab at Nationals improving significantly.

Huh. Well, the more you know. It wasn't terrible - at least it didn't have the problem of a 7-way tie. And as far as I can tell from looking at past Nats tests, he didn't reuse questions. Maybe I can see if I can volunteer to help run Chem Lab next year and change things up a bit. Who knows?

[maxxxxx]

Invasive Species (2) - This test was incredibly easy but this was offset by the 1:30 stations.

IMO this is how taxonomy events should be run at higher levels. It shouldn't be about who found the most obscure info from the back pages of google, but who has really mastered the content the best. Of course the questions shouldn't be too easy, but from what it sounds like this was closer to ideal than the MIT tests(or as I call them, the hardest Ecology tests I've ever seen).

[Uber]

Experimental Design (1st) - Usually the national ExDs are difficult because of their unique topics, but this year was not the case. The "design" in "experimental design" became trivial since the topic was motion involving balls. We just bounced balls from different heights and measured their rebound. Because of the simple topic, 5/10.

Microbe Mission (6th) - Fun test with extremely clear questions. The Gram stain was an... interesting experience for me, since I ended up trying to answer questions based on a blank slide and microscope crud. Pacing was perfect, 120 questions with a 10 minute lab that forced a steady but unrushed pace. Industrial applications was barely covered, and should have been represented a more. One or two strange questions, but definitely the highest quality test I've taken all year. 9/10

Anatomy and Physiology (9th) - Like varunscs11 said, BAC sucked, and the equation didn't work. Tiebreaker questions were fun even if they weren't worth anything. Way too many questions asking "How many of x in the body," since they're neither anatomy nor physiology and irrelevant unless in a relative context. Treatment was by far the toughest section. We probably failed that, but I enjoyed the challenge. Score: 7/10

Ecology (41st) - Complete trash compared to last year. Biomes question were so easy someone starting the week of could have gotten most of them right. Graph reading was basic addition and subtraction. Land reclamation was sloppily done. Biodiversity and other fill-in-the-blanks were vocab that gave you no indication of what she wanted. One biodiversity calculation didn't require a calculator, and the other was an obscure "gotcha" question. Nothing on more complex biogeochemical cycles, just a large amount of easy Pre-AP Biology level questions on the water cycle. Tiebreakers were chosen on the easiest questions. I don't see how they would've broken any ties since one of them asked "Which biome has acidic soil?" And really, 7-way tie and 15 teams within 2 points? Terrible test slapped together two nights before, 1/10

[KoolKalvin]

The maps are called spot maps. The reason why the were centered around the star in the first map was because the people who lived closest to the market were the people who were likely to go, because it was nearby and convenient. The reason why the second map had the cases randomly distributed around the county and the surrounding counties is because there was either a large event which attracted a large population from everywhere (i.e. County Fair, State Fair, etc.), or that the source was evenly distributed among the counties (i.e. supermarkets). Later, it was discovered that it was because of the milk from Supermarket A, and not a large event.

I think knowing what a spot map was boosted my partner and I from maybe 10th to 3rd. That was fairly obscure for such an easy test.

[maxxxxx]

The maps are called spot maps. The reason why the were centered around the star in the first map was because the people who lived closest to the market were the people who were likely to go, because it was nearby and convenient. The reason why the second map had the cases randomly distributed around the county and the surrounding counties is because there was either a large event which attracted a large population from everywhere (i.e. County Fair, State Fair, etc.), or that the source was evenly distributed among the counties (i.e. supermarkets). Later, it was discovered that it was because of the milk from Supermarket A, and not a large event.

I think knowing what a spot map was boosted my partner and I from maybe 10th to 3rd. That was fairly obscure for such an easy test.

That's not very obscure, it's like the first page of Principles of Epi

[kenniky]

Chemistry Lab (3): Ok, this was.... interesting. I walked out of that test room in a daze and feeling pretty awful. From what I had heard from other competitors, this was different than previous nats tests. It wasn't that the math or the concepts were difficult. It was that the entire event was a time-crunch. It ranged from 20-40 questions per station for 4 stations of test, and 8 minutes per station. Each question required copious dimensional analysis, and you could not take the test nor the answer sheet apart which was super difficult when your partner was working on a different page than you were. Multiple choice ranged from A-H, and every. single. question. was in Fahrenheight (or Rankine). However, it was nice that they gave us the conversions. We ended up finishing about 1/3 - 1/2 of each station and circling random answers for the rest. That wasn't great. Although the test was super long, I definitely would have appreciated some more in-depth concepts and topics as opposed to just a bunch of math. Oh well, still a great test. You definitely had to know what you were doing going in to it. 8/10

This is actually no different from previous nationals tests, you can check last year's or the year before's.

Jon Aros's Chemistry Lab tests are easily some of the worst quality tests at the National Tournament each year. Our strategy last year, when I got 1st, was to take the previous year's test and literally put it on our cheatsheet because he was known to reuse questions (and he did; about half of the test last year was reused). I'm honestly surprised that he didn't do that this year (from what I've heard) and I hope that this is a step in the right direction, but unfortunately until someone replaces Aros I don't see the quality of Chemistry Lab at Nationals improving significantly.

Huh. Well, the more you know. It wasn't terrible - at least it didn't have the problem of a 7-way tie. And as far as I can tell from looking at past Nats tests, he didn't reuse questions. Maybe I can see if I can volunteer to help run Chem Lab next year and change things up a bit. Who knows?

Let me know if you do and I'll come help out, a Chem Lab national champion might come in handy

[kenniky]

==double post sorry mods==

You know the exam was poorly written when there was a SEVEN WAY tie. How did the proctor even break the tie when there were only 3 very easy tie breakers (3! is 6 and 6 is less than 7)? Did she just flip a coin?

Errr... not to be that guy but you'd want to use 2^3 = 8 > 7 (because you can get each question right or wrong)