Mathcounts Chapter scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.mathcounts.org/programs/national-competition-participants?field_nc_team_value=va&field_nc_grade_value=All&field_nc_participant_type_value=All

Congrats to the State winners!

Where can we find the state results? top ten teams/individuals?

Longfellow,Carson,Cooper,Nysmith

It seems unfair that the Fairfax and NOVA chapters are (almost) always the top in state.

Also, getting third in Chapter (e.g. Basis this year, Cooper other years) really hurts chances for some bright kids who might have made state otherwise.

It's unfair to to the kids in Fairfax.
Mathcounts uses quotas, so talented kids from "top" schools don't get to go to Chapter *at all*, due to the per school quota. Kids from schools who don't have 12 talented or interested students get to go, with school or independently, no matter their talent level.

Yes, the artificial skimming at the school level is bad for everyone. Two of the VA nationals team did not make top 5 at chapter, so there's obviously variation from test to test. Maybe the 6th (or 13th) highest scoring student at Carson had a bad day at the school level and didn't make the school team, but could have done better at chapter.

AMC alleviated this problem by giving two (or four) AIME qualifying tests per year. Mathcounts should also expand the number of students who can go to chapter and state.

The coach is not required to pick the top scorers on the school round. One chapter result would have flipped if the coach accounted for a student's speeding thru the school round to get to another activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.mathcounts.org/programs/national-competition-participants?field_nc_team_value=va&field_nc_grade_value=All&field_nc_participant_type_value=All

Congrats to the State winners!

Where can we find the state results? top ten teams/individuals?

Longfellow,Carson,Cooper,Nysmith

It seems unfair that the Fairfax and NOVA chapters are (almost) always the top in state.

Also, getting third in Chapter (e.g. Basis this year, Cooper other years) really hurts chances for some bright kids who might have made state otherwise.

It's unfair to to the kids in Fairfax.
Mathcounts uses quotas, so talented kids from "top" schools don't get to go to Chapter *at all*, due to the per school quota. Kids from schools who don't have 12 talented or interested students get to go, with school or independently, no matter their talent level.

Yes, the artificial skimming at the school level is bad for everyone. Two of the VA nationals team did not make top 5 at chapter, so there's obviously variation from test to test. Maybe the 6th (or 13th) highest scoring student at Carson had a bad day at the school level and didn't make the school team, but could have done better at chapter.

AMC alleviated this problem by giving two (or four) AIME qualifying tests per year. Mathcounts should also expand the number of students who can go to chapter and state.

The coach is not required to pick the top scorers on the school round. One chapter result would have flipped if the coach accounted for a student's speeding thru the school round to get to another activity.

That's true of any activity. The coaches or coordinators generally have a lot of latitude in deciding who to pick for a team. Mathcounts selection at least tends to be more objective than science olympiad, sports teams, orchestra, school plays, or pretty much any other activity with limited spots.

What do you mean that a chapter result would have flipped? There's a kid who didn't make the top 12 at their school, but you think they would have made the top 5-10 at chapter? In my experience, top talent kids, even if they're using only half of the time on the school round, should easily score 42+. The problems are very basic and the ceiling is very low.

If a school doesn't have a pretty steep falloff between kid #4 and kid #13 on the school round, or if more than 12 kids score like a 38+ on the school round, the coach should be using alternate tests for team placement. It's really bad coaching if one dumb mistake on the school round could cost a kid who is a legitimate state level competitor the chance to compete at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.mathcounts.org/programs/national-competition-participants?field_nc_team_value=va&field_nc_grade_value=All&field_nc_participant_type_value=All

Congrats to the State winners!

Where can we find the state results? top ten teams/individuals?

Longfellow,Carson,Cooper,Nysmith

It seems unfair that the Fairfax and NOVA chapters are (almost) always the top in state.

Also, getting third in Chapter (e.g. Basis this year, Cooper other years) really hurts chances for some bright kids who might have made state otherwise.

It's unfair to to the kids in Fairfax.
Mathcounts uses quotas, so talented kids from "top" schools don't get to go to Chapter *at all*, due to the per school quota. Kids from schools who don't have 12 talented or interested students get to go, with school or independently, no matter their talent level.

Yes, the artificial skimming at the school level is bad for everyone. Two of the VA nationals team did not make top 5 at chapter, so there's obviously variation from test to test. Maybe the 6th (or 13th) highest scoring student at Carson had a bad day at the school level and didn't make the school team, but could have done better at chapter.

AMC alleviated this problem by giving two (or four) AIME qualifying tests per year. Mathcounts should also expand the number of students who can go to chapter and state.

The coach is not required to pick the top scorers on the school round. One chapter result would have flipped if the coach accounted for a student's speeding thru the school round to get to another activity.

That's true of any activity. The coaches or coordinators generally have a lot of latitude in deciding who to pick for a team. Mathcounts selection at least tends to be more objective than science olympiad, sports teams, orchestra, school plays, or pretty much any other activity with limited spots.

What do you mean that a chapter result would have flipped? There's a kid who didn't make the top 12 at their school, but you think they would have made the top 5-10 at chapter? In my experience, top talent kids, even if they're using only half of the time on the school round, should easily score 42+. The problems are very basic and the ceiling is very low.

If a school doesn't have a pretty steep falloff between kid #4 and kid #13 on the school round, or if more than 12 kids score like a 38+ on the school round, the coach should be using alternate tests for team placement. It's really bad coaching if one dumb mistake on the school round could cost a kid who is a legitimate state level competitor the chance to compete at all.

OP to PP here. I agree and think the right solution is to expand the set of competitors at Chapter. The NCAA has done the same thing with the +First4 for the NCAA bball tournament and the expansion of BCS playoffs for football. Everyone realizes knows that when there's a cut-off, some marginal kids (or kids with bad test days) may lose out, so the solutions have been to expand the eligibility. For low stakes competitions like Mathcounts (state and below), I think the benefit of expansion outweight the costs (e.g. Potomac kids quitting because they're not winning, like in the PP example).

[Anonymous]

It already has been expanded. Back in the day, each school could only enter 4 kids. By your logic, NCAA now needs to expand to a +first8, then a +first12, and so on until basically everyone is in.

12 is the number Mathcounts decided on to ensure that the tippy top kids from a school will get a school slot, even on a bad day, but that the total number of kids participating at each chapter is still logistically reasonable. Keep in mind that there are space constraints for seating everyone as well as logistical constraints for proctoring, grading, etc. It's not an unreasonable number.

If a bad day was the thing that prevented Bobby13 from being able to participate, he wouldn't have made it to state even on a good day. Excluding him is really not a big deal. There are plenty of open enrollment math competitions, and he has no shortage of opportunities to do competitive math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It already has been expanded. Back in the day, each school could only enter 4 kids. By your logic, NCAA now needs to expand to a +first8, then a +first12, and so on until basically everyone is in.

12 is the number Mathcounts decided on to ensure that the tippy top kids from a school will get a school slot, even on a bad day, but that the total number of kids participating at each chapter is still logistically reasonable. Keep in mind that there are space constraints for seating everyone as well as logistical constraints for proctoring, grading, etc. It's not an unreasonable number.

If a bad day was the thing that prevented Bobby13 from being able to participate, he wouldn't have made it to state even on a good day. Excluding him is really not a big deal. There are plenty of open enrollment math competitions, and he has no shortage of opportunities to do competitive math.

Expansion has happened. The NCAA men's basketball tournament had 8 teams back in the 50s. It will inevitably be 64+8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It already has been expanded. Back in the day, each school could only enter 4 kids. By your logic, NCAA now needs to expand to a +first8, then a +first12, and so on until basically everyone is in.

12 is the number Mathcounts decided on to ensure that the tippy top kids from a school will get a school slot, even on a bad day, but that the total number of kids participating at each chapter is still logistically reasonable. Keep in mind that there are space constraints for seating everyone as well as logistical constraints for proctoring, grading, etc. It's not an unreasonable number.

If a bad day was the thing that prevented Bobby13 from being able to participate, he wouldn't have made it to state even on a good day. Excluding him is really not a big deal. There are plenty of open enrollment math competitions, and he has no shortage of opportunities to do competitive math.

The limit is 12 because that's what fills the 100-200 contest room. It's not out of concern for who goes to State.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.mathcounts.org/programs/national-competition-participants?field_nc_team_value=va&field_nc_grade_value=All&field_nc_participant_type_value=All

Congrats to the State winners!

Where can we find the state results? top ten teams/individuals?

Longfellow,Carson,Cooper,Nysmith

It seems unfair that the Fairfax and NOVA chapters are (almost) always the top in state.

Also, getting third in Chapter (e.g. Basis this year, Cooper other years) really hurts chances for some bright kids who might have made state otherwise.

It's unfair to to the kids in Fairfax.
Mathcounts uses quotas, so talented kids from "top" schools don't get to go to Chapter *at all*, due to the per school quota. Kids from schools who don't have 12 talented or interested students get to go, with school or independently, no matter their talent level.

Yes, the artificial skimming at the school level is bad for everyone. Two of the VA nationals team did not make top 5 at chapter, so there's obviously variation from test to test. Maybe the 6th (or 13th) highest scoring student at Carson had a bad day at the school level and didn't make the school team, but could have done better at chapter.

AMC alleviated this problem by giving two (or four) AIME qualifying tests per year. Mathcounts should also expand the number of students who can go to chapter and state.

The coach is not required to pick the top scorers on the school round. One chapter result would have flipped if the coach accounted for a student's speeding thru the school round to get to another activity.

That's true of any activity. The coaches or coordinators generally have a lot of latitude in deciding who to pick for a team. Mathcounts selection at least tends to be more objective than science olympiad, sports teams, orchestra, school plays, or pretty much any other activity with limited spots.

What do you mean that a chapter result would have flipped? There's a kid who didn't make the top 12 at their school, but you think they would have made the top 5-10 at chapter? In my experience, top talent kids, even if they're using only half of the time on the school round, should easily score 42+. The problems are very basic and the ceiling is very low.

If a school doesn't have a pretty steep falloff between kid #4 and kid #13 on the school round, or if more than 12 kids score like a 38+ on the school round, the coach should be using alternate tests for team placement. It's really bad coaching if one dumb mistake on the school round could cost a kid who is a legitimate state level competitor the chance to compete at all.

OP to PP here. I agree and think the right solution is to expand the set of competitors at Chapter. The NCAA has done the same thing with the +First4 for the NCAA bball tournament and the expansion of BCS playoffs for football. Everyone realizes knows that when there's a cut-off, some marginal kids (or kids with bad test days) may lose out, so the solutions have been to expand the eligibility. For low stakes competitions like Mathcounts (state and below), I think the benefit of expansion outweight the costs (e.g. Potomac kids quitting because they're not winning, like in the PP example).

Fundraise and volunteer to split the chapter into 2 parts, and then invite more students per school to your chapter. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Carderock Math Contest is an in-person Mathcounts style event at a USNavy base.

[Anonymous]

MathCounts was 10 students per school until 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What do you mean that a chapter result would have flipped? There's a kid who didn't make the top 12 at their school, but you think they would have made the top 5-10 at chapter? In my experience, top talent kids, even if they're using only half of the time on the school round, should easily score 42+. The problems are very basic and the ceiling is very low.

Yes. that is what happened. They didn't even have half the time from what I hear, showed up and sped thru it. The coach should have put this kid in. He may not have made top ten at chapter, but the team would have won first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What do you mean that a chapter result would have flipped? There's a kid who didn't make the top 12 at their school, but you think they would have made the top 5-10 at chapter? In my experience, top talent kids, even if they're using only half of the time on the school round, should easily score 42+. The problems are very basic and the ceiling is very low.

Yes. that is what happened. They didn't even have half the time from what I hear, showed up and sped thru it. The coach should have put this kid in. He may not have made top ten at chapter, but the team would have won first place.

If the kid didn't make the top 12 and get to compete at all, why are you so sure that the kid would have done well at chapter? Kids often do much better when they're mocking the test at home than they do for the real test.

Also, the fault in this scenario is at least 90% on the kid/parents, less than 10% on the coach, and 0% on Mathcounts. If the kid wanted to be eligible to participate, then they should have prioritized the school round. Honestly, if I were the coach, I'd probably put in the kid who made the time for and tried on the school round over the kid who blew it off to rush to some other activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What do you mean that a chapter result would have flipped? There's a kid who didn't make the top 12 at their school, but you think they would have made the top 5-10 at chapter? In my experience, top talent kids, even if they're using only half of the time on the school round, should easily score 42+. The problems are very basic and the ceiling is very low.

Yes. that is what happened. They didn't even have half the time from what I hear, showed up and sped thru it. The coach should have put this kid in. He may not have made top ten at chapter, but the team would have won first place.

If the kid didn't make the top 12 and get to compete at all, why are you so sure that the kid would have done well at chapter? Kids often do much better when they're mocking the test at home than they do for the real test.

Also, the fault in this scenario is at least 90% on the kid/parents, less than 10% on the coach, and 0% on Mathcounts. If the kid wanted to be eligible to participate, then they should have prioritized the school round. Honestly, if I were the coach, I'd probably put in the kid who made the time for and tried on the school round over the kid who blew it off to rush to some other activity.

This is ridiculous. People are busy and have conflicts sometimes m it doesn't mean they don't care and aren't putting the work in every week for months. It hurts the whole team when a kid has a conflict with something silly like the school test, and the team loses one of their star players over it. There are kids who would help be top 10 in the state who missed chapter over lazy coaching like this.

[Anonymous]

It also hurts everyone else in the contest, when they know the competition is nerfed because their strong competitors are absent. It's not fun to win with an asterisk knowing that someone better wasn't invited.

[Anonymous]

If the coach failed to communicate when the school round would be, or that it would be the means of picking the team, then the coach is at fault. If a kid was sick and the coach didn't offer a makeup, the coach is at fault. If there was a school sponsored, highly important conflicting activity, that's on the coach. If the kid simply had another activity and prioritized it over mathcounts, that's on the kid. If the kid raced through the test, that's also on the kid.

The whole point about the competition being nerfed is absurd. It already is the case that kids have to pick among several activities, and some of the kids who would be at the top won't be there at all. That's life. At Longfellow, there's no overlap between the science olympiad kids and the Mathcounts kids. Many top mathcounts kids would also be top science olympiad kids and vice versa. They have to pick one. Kids who would be at the top in either of these, but also play elite travel sports might not be available. Some kids who would have performed well at chapter or state got sick that day. There is no asterisk because someone better wasn't there.

[Anonymous]

You also seem convinced that this kid is a top tier talent? Why? Did he score 120+ on the AMC 10? Did he make top 10 in the chapter last year? What other math accolades does he have? What score did he get when racing through the school round? (FWIW, my kid was in a similar situation with the school round last year. He had 18 minutes for the sprint and still got 29/30). That is not uncommon among kids who will likely do well at chapter.