Protectiveness over Resources

[whythelongface]

I got the impression that the reason state and regional tests weren't released was so they could be shared with other states and regions, of course I would prefer that this didn't have to happen but knowing that some supervisors are assigned to run events in my state only days before the competition happens (news flash NJ always needs volunteers), sometimes it honestly is impossible to find somebody with the time and knowledge to write a good test and they have to use an old one.

The New Jersey Rocks and Minerals test was from another state. The supervisors told us, explicitly, and it was awful, which I guess is probably why we lost that event to Montgomery, a team that we have consistently beat in that event in every invitational. The point being: it is NOT responsible to allow test trading between states to continue, it only promotes this kind of behavior in the state director's committee. Yes, States was shabby, terribly planned, and just generally horrible, but the tournament director made no effort to even check the quality of the test administered, a test that was so shockingly bad it broke at least one event rule an induced headaches in its own stupidity.

[knottingpurple]

I got the impression that the reason state and regional tests weren't released was so they could be shared with other states and regions, of course I would prefer that this didn't have to happen but knowing that some supervisors are assigned to run events in my state only days before the competition happens (news flash NJ always needs volunteers), sometimes it honestly is impossible to find somebody with the time and knowledge to write a good test and they have to use an old one.

The New Jersey Rocks and Minerals test was from another state. The supervisors told us, explicitly, and it was awful, which I guess is probably why we lost that event to Montgomery, a team that we have consistently beat in that event in every invitational. The point being: it is NOT responsible to allow test trading between states to continue, it only promotes this kind of behavior in the state director's committee. Yes, States was shabby, terribly planned, and just generally horrible, but the tournament director made no effort to even check the quality of the test administered, a test that was so shockingly bad it broke at least one event rule an induced headaches in its own stupidity.

Just because in one case it worked out badly doesn't mean it always would. Hopefully, if there were a well organized formal test bank, there would be enough people involved to check the quality of the tests in the test bank. And ESes who don't know enough to check if a test they were given followed the rules would certainly not have been capable of writing a better test themselves, especially not in only a couple of days. Being given a poor quality test might have been the difference between an event running or not. Not to mention, while that test making results somewhat random is a valid complaint, beating a team at invites consistently doesn't mean you should beat them at States - maybe Monty worked really really hard at Rocks the way we did at Herpetology, where we brought ourselves from consistent drops at invites to first place?

[whythelongface]

Not to mention, while that test making results somewhat random is a valid complaint, beating a team at invites consistently doesn't mean you should beat them at States - maybe Monty worked really really hard at Rocks the way we did at Herpetology, where we brought ourselves from consistent drops at invites to first place?

I would love to see the score distributions for State this year. Unfortunately, NJSO is unlikely to keep records of scores and stuff past the rule/score challenging period of what, four days? Which is understandable, but still unfortunate.