There's really not much to say here! Experimental Design is a hard event to mess up when tournaments are in person, and even more so digitally.
For me, this test did not meet that mission. Science Olympiad is first and foremost about the science, and less about the olympiad. Taking a high quality test, no matter how one does, is always preferable over taking a low quality test, even if one would do better. I know that I don't have much to complain about, since 11th is still pretty good, but my main issue, and many other teams would sympathize with me, is the testing experience. My partner and I didn't expect to win the event, by any measure, but we expected to do reasonably well. Overall, this was the Nationals test that I was disappointed the most by. Needless to say, we were heavily disappointed. My partner and I are relatively good at chemistry, and we've had few issues when practicing on invitational tests this year from BirdSO, BEARSO, etc., and those high quality tests/hard chemistry problems were what we expected going into the test. In essence, this reduced the event from knowing about complex chemistry problems and quasi-real life laboratory situations to who could punch numbers in a calculator the quickest. While a couple of these questions would be okay to deal with, writing these as most of the questions was not a good move.
Retrospectively (since I don't remember the test exactly), about 75% of the test consisted of plug and chug calculations about the simplest values - molar mass, molality, molarity, and very basic titrations.
0 kommentar(er)
