Reply to Mathcounts Chapter scores

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "Mathcounts Chapter scores"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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![/quote]

Where can we find the state results? top ten teams/individuals?[/quote]
Longfellow,Carson,Cooper,Nysmith[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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).

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics