National Test Discussion

[windu34]

Here's some data you can play with. I've included the Pearson correlation coefficient comparing each event to overall team rank. This can be done for any tournament's results.

Schools arent matched with scores

[Unome]

Here's some data you can play with. I've included the Pearson correlation coefficient comparing each event to overall team rank. This can be done for any tournament's results.

Schools arent matched with scores

Looks like this is only in Div C though (via spellchecking a few medalists that I remember in B).

[bernard]

Here's some data you can play with. I've included the Pearson correlation coefficient comparing each event to overall team rank. This can be done for any tournament's results.

Schools arent matched with scores

Looks like this is only in Div C though (via spellchecking a few medalists that I remember in B).

Thanks, these scores were copied directly from the spreadsheet I use for calculating prediction contest scores but thankfully prediction contest scoring is correct as it only uses team number. I've updated the file in the original post.

[chalker]

Max event correlation: 0.52
Average event correlation: 0.39
Standard deviation: 0.09
Min event correlation: 0.20

Ecology had a correlation coefficient of 0.28. This means it was about 1 standard deviation below the average correlation for events. There were several events with lower correlations.

In essence, what this means is that statistically, the resulting ranks in Ecology are reasonably well aligned across all teams with the overall team ranks.

Oops.. I did this during lunch and thanks to Bernard posting his sheet I realized I did the wrong ranges. Below are the actual numbers, but the general conclusion is the same:

Max: 0.85
Average: 0.75
Std. Dev.: 0.10
Min: 0.42
Ecology: 0.57

WIDI and EV are lower than Ecology.
8 of the 23 events are under the average.

[windu34]

Max event correlation: 0.52
Average event correlation: 0.39
Standard deviation: 0.09
Min event correlation: 0.20

Ecology had a correlation coefficient of 0.28. This means it was about 1 standard deviation below the average correlation for events. There were several events with lower correlations.

In essence, what this means is that statistically, the resulting ranks in Ecology are reasonably well aligned across all teams with the overall team ranks.

Oops.. I did this during lunch and thanks to Bernard posting his sheet I realized I did the wrong ranges. Below are the actual numbers, but the general conclusion is the same:

Max: 0.85
Average: 0.75
Std. Dev.: 0.10
Min: 0.42
Ecology: 0.57

WIDI and EV are lower than Ecology.
8 of the 23 events are under the average.

To be fair, I don't think build events and events such as WIDI can reasonably grouped together with Ecology. I have medalled at nationals twice in EV now and if you look at my history in EV at regionals and various invites, you would never even think there would be a chance that I would rank above 20th at nationals. The smallest falter in a vehicle can mean the difference between 1st and last in this event. Ecology is a study event - if you don't know one small detail, it wont significantly inhibit you from doing well. Correlation coefficients for study events should be much higher than those for builds and inherently inconsistent events such as Widi thus if you are going to compare Ecology to anything, it should only be to other study events of a similar nature (Dynamic Planet, Remote Sensing, etc)

[efeng]

Max event correlation: 0.52
Average event correlation: 0.39
Standard deviation: 0.09
Min event correlation: 0.20

Ecology had a correlation coefficient of 0.28. This means it was about 1 standard deviation below the average correlation for events. There were several events with lower correlations.

In essence, what this means is that statistically, the resulting ranks in Ecology are reasonably well aligned across all teams with the overall team ranks.

Oops.. I did this during lunch and thanks to Bernard posting his sheet I realized I did the wrong ranges. Below are the actual numbers, but the general conclusion is the same:

Max: 0.85
Average: 0.75
Std. Dev.: 0.10
Min: 0.42
Ecology: 0.57

WIDI and EV are lower than Ecology.
8 of the 23 events are under the average.

To be fair, I don't think build events and events such as WIDI can reasonably grouped together with Ecology. I have medalled at nationals twice in EV now and if you look at my history in EV at regionals and various invites, you would never even think there would be a chance that I would rank above 20th at nationals. The smallest falter in a vehicle can mean the difference between 1st and last in this event. Ecology is a study event - if you don't know one small detail, it wont significantly inhibit you from doing well. Correlation coefficients for study events should be much higher than those for builds and inherently inconsistent events such as Widi thus if you are going to compare Ecology to anything, it should only be to other study events of a similar nature (Dynamic Planet, Remote Sensing, etc)

Very true. However, I am curious as to how the other build events ranked in terms of correlation coefficients.

[Adi1008]

Oops.. I did this during lunch and thanks to Bernard posting his sheet I realized I did the wrong ranges. Below are the actual numbers, but the general conclusion is the same:

Max: 0.85
Average: 0.75
Std. Dev.: 0.10
Min: 0.42
Ecology: 0.57

WIDI and EV are lower than Ecology.
8 of the 23 events are under the average.

To be fair, I don't think build events and events such as WIDI can reasonably grouped together with Ecology. I have medalled at nationals twice in EV now and if you look at my history in EV at regionals and various invites, you would never even think there would be a chance that I would rank above 20th at nationals. The smallest falter in a vehicle can mean the difference between 1st and last in this event. Ecology is a study event - if you don't know one small detail, it wont significantly inhibit you from doing well. Correlation coefficients for study events should be much higher than those for builds and inherently inconsistent events such as Widi thus if you are going to compare Ecology to anything, it should only be to other study events of a similar nature (Dynamic Planet, Remote Sensing, etc)

Very true. However, I am curious as to how the other build events ranked in terms of correlation coefficients.

For Division C:
Electric Vehicle: 0.57
Helicopters: 0.74
Hovercraft: 0.79
Optics: 0.67
Robot Arm: 0.69
Towers: 0.79
Wind Power: 0.81

[kenniky]

Here's some data you can play with. I've included the Pearson correlation coefficient comparing each event to overall team rank. This can be done for any tournament's results.

Based on these results how is WIDI still an event (only partially joking)

This was the case last year too iirc, most of the events had stdevs 0.55 or above but WIDI's was around 0.4

[kenniky]

just gonna post them in plaintext for people to see:

2016-2017 B (Click to Show Hidden Text)

[b]Alphabetical[/b]
Anatomy and Physiology: 0.56
Bottle Rockets: 0.73
Crime Busters: 0.79
Disease Detectives: 0.66
Dynamic Planet: 0.77
Ecology: 0.78
Experimental Design: 0.82
Fast Facts: 0.73
Food Science: 0.75
Hovercraft: 0.74
Invasive Species: 0.78
Meteorology: 0.78
Microbe Mission: 0.86
Mission Possible: 0.67
Optics: 0.72
Reach for the Stars: 0.88
Road Scholar: 0.85
Rocks and Minerals: 0.81
Scrambler: 0.57
Towers: 0.76
Wind Power: 0.79
Wright Stuff: 0.50
Write It Do It: 0.62

[b]Numerical order[/b]
Reach for the Stars: 0.88
Microbe Mission: 0.86
Road Scholar: 0.85
Experimental Design: 0.82
Rocks and Minerals: 0.81
Wind Power: 0.79
Crime Busters: 0.79
Ecology: 0.78
Invasive Species: 0.78
Meteorology: 0.78
Dynamic Planet: 0.77
Towers: 0.76
Food Science: 0.75
Hovercraft: 0.74
Bottle Rockets: 0.73
Fast Facts: 0.73
Optics: 0.72
Mission Possible: 0.67
Disease Detectives: 0.66
Write It Do It: 0.62
Scrambler: 0.57
Anatomy and Physiology: 0.56
Wright Stuff: 0.50

2016-2017 C (Click to Show Hidden Text)

[b]Alphabetical[/b]
Anatomy and Physiology: 0.85
Astronomy: 0.80
Chemistry Lab: 0.82
Disease Detectives: 0.74
Dynamic Planet: 0.83
Ecology: 0.57
Electric Vehicle: 0.56
Experimental Design: 0.67
Forensics: 0.79
Game On: 0.79
Helicopters: 0.74
Hovercraft: 0.79
Hydrogeology: 0.79
Invasive Species: 0.85
Materials Science: 0.79
Microbe Mission: 0.76
Optics: 0.67
Remote Sensing: 0.82
Robot Arm: 0.69
Rocks and Minerals: 0.83
Towers: 0.79
Wind Power: 0.81
Write It Do It: 0.42

[b]Numerical order[/b]
Anatomy and Physiology: 0.85
Invasive Species: 0.85
Dynamic Planet: 0.83
Rocks and Minerals: 0.83
Chemistry Lab: 0.82
Remote Sensing: 0.82
Wind Power: 0.81
Astronomy: 0.80
Forensics: 0.79
Game On: 0.79
Hovercraft: 0.79
Hydrogeology: 0.79
Materials Science: 0.79
Towers: 0.79
Microbe Mission: 0.76
Disease Detectives: 0.74
Helicopters: 0.74
Robot Arm: 0.69
Experimental Design: 0.67
Optics: 0.67
Ecology: 0.57
Electric Vehicle: 0.56
Write It Do It: 0.42

2015-2016 C (Click to Show Hidden Text)

[b]Alphabetical[/b]
Air Trajectory: 0.57
Anatomy and Physiology: 0.84
Astronomy: 0.79
Bridge Building: 0.74
Cell Biology: 0.80
Chemistry Lab: 0.66
Disease Detectives: 0.72
Dynamic Planet: 0.71
Electric Vehicle: 0.61
Experimental Design: 0.69
Forensics: 0.73
Fossils: 0.85
Game On: 0.59
GeoLogic Mapping: 0.79
Green Generation: 0.70
Hydrogeology: 0.70
Invasive Species: 0.79
It's About Time: 0.83
Protein Modeling: 0.80
Robot Arm: 0.69
Wind Power: 0.78
Wright Stuff: 0.54
Write It Do It: 0.39

[b]Numerical order[/b]
Fossils: 0.85
Anatomy and Physiology: 0.84
It's About Time: 0.83
Cell Biology: 0.80
Protein Modeling: 0.80
Astronomy: 0.79
GeoLogic Mapping: 0.79
Invasive Species: 0.79
Wind Power: 0.78
Bridge Building: 0.74
Forensics: 0.73
Disease Detectives: 0.72
Dynamic Planet: 0.71
Green Generation: 0.70
Hydrogeology: 0.70
Experimental Design: 0.69
Robot Arm: 0.69
Chemistry Lab: 0.66
Electric Vehicle: 0.61
Game On: 0.59
Air Trajectory: 0.57
Wright Stuff: 0.54
Write It Do It: 0.39

Interestingly 0.79 is the mode for all three data sets

[pikachu4919]

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

I heard basically the same things y'all have said about this guy in both IN state and nationals from my teammates, and hey, I don't blame ya for it - one of the people who did it on my team last year made it to USNCO camp twice and didn't do that well at either tournament last year (4th state (...STATE!! (and even Munster didn't beat us in that event that year either)), 13th nationals)...and I almost got slated to do Chem Lab last year at nationals. I love chemistry, but I wonder if I should be glad that I didn't

Wait kenniky why were you at home during nationals this year...?

If I seem to be posting this at an ungodly hour, it's probably because of where I am right now (*cough cough* China)....I'm surprised access to the site isn't blocked here

And to anyone giving tips for emerging ES's, thanks a bunch! I've certainly had my fair share of trying it out this season, and I only hope to become better at it as time goes on!