Hardest Science Olympiad Event, in your opinion?

[Killboe]

Disease

Justification? [/quote
Tests are so unpredictable, you need to be in the event for atleast 2 years + to kinda now whats gonna be on the tests.

[Name]

Disease

Justification? [/quote
Tests are so unpredictable, you need to be in the event for atleast 2 years + to kinda now whats gonna be on the tests.

That applies to most events....

[Killboe]

Justification? [/quote
Tests are so unpredictable, you need to be in the event for atleast 2 years + to kinda now whats gonna be on the tests.

That applies to most events....

For example, Road Scholar, you know what is going to be on the test, so you study that, so it's 1 subject that you constantly study. But in Disease Detectives, like I said, after like 2/3 years of being in the event you know whats going to be in it. You have to learn everything and put everything on your cheat sheet.

[Anomaly]

I find Anatomy and Physiology to be one of the most challenging events I’ve taken on, yet it’s probably one of my favorites (if not the favorite). We kind of have a love/hate relationship

[Nerd_Bunny]

I find Anatomy and Physiology to be one of the most challenging events I’ve taken on, yet it’s probably one of my favorites (if not the favorite). We kind of have a love/hate relationship

Same. I really love learning about A&P but then the detailed super-hard test question comes and I really dislike my event. Then the tests get easier and I like it again.

[Name]

For example, Road Scholar, you know what is going to be on the test, so you study that, so it's 1 subject that you constantly study. But in Disease Detectives, like I said, after like 2/3 years of being in the event you know whats going to be in it. You have to learn everything and put everything on your cheat sheet.

Like I said it applied to most events. Alotta of my previous events (herp invasive Fermi and matsci) all can have very different topics covered.

[UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F]

Disease

Justification?

Tests are so unpredictable, you need to be in the event for atleast 2 years + to kinda now whats gonna be on the tests.

I disagree with this, a lot of tests ask you to do the same things... Also, it stays in and doesn't change much from year to year (population growth tests and foodborne illness tests are pretty much the same thing)

[JavaScriptCoder]

I don't know, because its my first year. If you define the result ranked by average questions wrong, that might work, but I can't find statistics about that. If you define it by polling, then... well, I will be making a poll for subjective ratings. As there was *a little* inherent bias against 8th graders participating in C in my school, I was limited to two events. Of those, i thought materials science was hard, and got 3rd, and I thought chem lab was easy, and got 3rd. So welp...

[pb5754]

In my opinion, Astronomy calculations are the hardest.

Really? I think they're fairly straightforward, with all values defined very clearly. Even the ID part of astro is nowhere anywhere near what true ID events are like.

ID is way easier than rocks and minerals. I don't it may just be because it is my first year in Astro.

[Name]

I don't know, because its my first year. If you define the result ranked by average questions wrong, that might work, but I can't find statistics about that. If you define it by polling, then... well, I will be making a poll for subjective ratings. As there was *a little* inherent bias against 8th graders participating in C in my school, I was limited to two events. Of those, i thought materials science was hard, and got 3rd, and I thought chem lab was easy, and got 3rd. So welp...

Well hard events are hard for everyone and easy events are easy for everyone balancing out. Consistently could be used to measure difficulty (in which case builds and maybe inquiry would win). Average questions wrong really can vary depending on which competition (like MIT vs regionals) and different events are well different. In Fermi for example getting 60-70 percent of the points is usually considered excellent while anything less then 50 percent is usually bad (again depends on competition but this I feel is pretty standard in almost all competitions). On the other hand in some tests near 100 scores can possibly be achieved, while in competitors like MIT 30 percent is pretty good. (Speaking from my own matsci experience). I doubt difficulty of events can really be measured accurately, and difficulty is more of an opinion where it's usually skewed toward the events the people do.