Re: National Test Discussion
Posted: May 22nd, 2017, 7:31 pm
Electric Vehicle (2) - Extremely well run as always. The supervisors were very clear and concise on giving instructions and I especially appreciated the clarity of the exact placement of the target point on the tape (commonly left ambiguous at competitions). Not much to say other than that it was perfectly run. 10/10
Hovercraft (20) - Build portion in my experience was very well run. Impound was thorough and accurate. Vehicle testing was run well in my experience, but I didn't attempt to check if the track was level so I cannot speak on behalf of those comments. Supervisor was clear and straightforward about stopping and starting. The written test was alright. While I felt the difficulty level was definitely present, it was not dispersed over each topic. Kinematics and Newton's laws were easy and straightforward while topics such as fluids were much more difficult. Overall 8/10
Invasive Species (5) - As stated above, the test was very easy and the time constraint was the only factor that attempted to separate teams. I was quite disappointed in the quality of the test in that in failed to test genuine and thorough knowledge as well as the ability to critically think about a problem. Instead, the test was extremely biased towards those with the scientific names memorized (thankfully my partner and I) and I found this to be deviating from the true goal of this event, which is supposedly to test the competitors understanding of invasion ecology in specific species. The straight identification stations were nice in that it tested whether or not teams could distinguish between similar looking species without extensive use of a written dichotomous key and/or identification sheet. Overall 6/10
Remote Sensing (12) - This test was very well written and thoroughly tested the ability of the competitors to not only critically think but also manage their time. Only complaint lies within the energy balance section, where the units and instructions were very ambiguous and multiple teams (including myself) had to repeatedly question the proctor about the intent of the questions. The supervisor was genuinely interested in how the competitors received the test and actively looked for criticism/feedback which is something I found very satisfying. Overall 9/10
Robot Arm (7) - Everything was very well-run as expected and I have no complaints as far as how the supervisor conducted the event. In terms of the actual competition surface, I am conflicted. While I understand my device should be capable of performing on any given surface, that just isn't the case. The hardened (cemented?) surface caused the pennies being dispensed from my XY table to bounce considerably resulting in large losses in accuracy. Additionally, the target provided has smaller radii due to the supervisor's decision to make the thick lines outling the rings count for the lower ring. While run well, I would have liked to have seen targets similar to those made available to all teams on the national website. Overall 8/10
Wind Power (11) - Very well run. Test was well-written, Device testing was well-run. No other comments. 10/10
Overall I felt this tournament was not run as well as last year. In addition to the things listed above by varuncs, the awards were not quite as exciting. The music played between events and top 6 places helped keep a lively atmosphere which is something I felt was slightly lacking this year. Keynote speaker was not well chosen for the given audience IMO. 7/10
Hovercraft (20) - Build portion in my experience was very well run. Impound was thorough and accurate. Vehicle testing was run well in my experience, but I didn't attempt to check if the track was level so I cannot speak on behalf of those comments. Supervisor was clear and straightforward about stopping and starting. The written test was alright. While I felt the difficulty level was definitely present, it was not dispersed over each topic. Kinematics and Newton's laws were easy and straightforward while topics such as fluids were much more difficult. Overall 8/10
Invasive Species (5) - As stated above, the test was very easy and the time constraint was the only factor that attempted to separate teams. I was quite disappointed in the quality of the test in that in failed to test genuine and thorough knowledge as well as the ability to critically think about a problem. Instead, the test was extremely biased towards those with the scientific names memorized (thankfully my partner and I) and I found this to be deviating from the true goal of this event, which is supposedly to test the competitors understanding of invasion ecology in specific species. The straight identification stations were nice in that it tested whether or not teams could distinguish between similar looking species without extensive use of a written dichotomous key and/or identification sheet. Overall 6/10
Remote Sensing (12) - This test was very well written and thoroughly tested the ability of the competitors to not only critically think but also manage their time. Only complaint lies within the energy balance section, where the units and instructions were very ambiguous and multiple teams (including myself) had to repeatedly question the proctor about the intent of the questions. The supervisor was genuinely interested in how the competitors received the test and actively looked for criticism/feedback which is something I found very satisfying. Overall 9/10
Robot Arm (7) - Everything was very well-run as expected and I have no complaints as far as how the supervisor conducted the event. In terms of the actual competition surface, I am conflicted. While I understand my device should be capable of performing on any given surface, that just isn't the case. The hardened (cemented?) surface caused the pennies being dispensed from my XY table to bounce considerably resulting in large losses in accuracy. Additionally, the target provided has smaller radii due to the supervisor's decision to make the thick lines outling the rings count for the lower ring. While run well, I would have liked to have seen targets similar to those made available to all teams on the national website. Overall 8/10
Wind Power (11) - Very well run. Test was well-written, Device testing was well-run. No other comments. 10/10
Overall I felt this tournament was not run as well as last year. In addition to the things listed above by varuncs, the awards were not quite as exciting. The music played between events and top 6 places helped keep a lively atmosphere which is something I felt was slightly lacking this year. Keynote speaker was not well chosen for the given audience IMO. 7/10
)
)