So, now that UIL "C" is available...

[MistaPotta]

Any interesting observations on the test?
~MP

[Quelloquialism]

After intense dissection and examination of the test, I made one startling discovery.

It had lots of numbers on it--even more numbers than my last English essay had.

...yeah, I haven't noticed anything significant. Most of it was pretty straightforward and such.

[mathslug]

I've noticed that this test looks almost nothing like the other 5 TMSCA tests we've seen so far. It had questions that seemed a little more UIL compatable. Anyway, I think that the questions in the 26-28 and 36-38 were a bit more difficult than usual, but otherwise, I'd say that the test was actually easier than other ones, especially since I scored close to my all-time high score, so yeah.

Zack

[Kurt]

I think the test was a bit more difficult too. I had 8 out of 70 unanswered by the end of the test (I took it on my own, my school didn't go to a UIL C meet), and got a 262 on it.

However, I did better on punches than usual - maybe the multiple fonts used on TMSCA tests was screwing me up more than I thought. The S&G were a bit harder though in my opinion.

I've got a bit of a rant about one question in particular though - #47 (the data entry problem). It says that the two quantities are inversely proportional, but I guess I don't see how they possibly could be.
If one quantity goes to infinity (as the question says), shouldn't the other go to zero? The only exception to this (that I can see) is if there is a constant being ADDED on...but in that case, wouldn't they not be proportional? I do get their answer if I assume a constant is added on, but I don't understand how that is a valid assumption based upon the "proportionality".

[bradp]

1-5 number crunchers = 4 negative answers, 1 positive answe
11-15 = same
21-25 = 4 positive, 1 neg
31-35 = 4 positive 1 neg
41-45 = 4 positive, 1 neg
coincidence?

on #16... it gives a negative answer for percent error. I've always seen absolute values in percent error formulas, whatever :\

scored 169 First time using RPN on a calc test (or any test for that matter) - got to 46, skipped 5 stated and 1 geo

Do you guys with enough speed do all the number crunchers and then go back and do the stated/geo? or do you go in order?

[AuSmith]

Yea, most people do the crunchers first. Then, some people work stated & geo in sequence and some people do all the geometry they can do before the stated. Does anybody know what a good crunch time is? Or a novice one?

[Quelloquialism]

[AuSmith]

I heard some kids from Southwest something could do the old punches in under 10 minutes. And, their calculators would break since they went so fast?

[mathslug]

Haha, thats hilarious, though I wouldnt doubt it. About 6 years ago, those Southwest guys were unstopable. I saw about a million calculator trophies in their math and science room when I went to their contest last year. Finishing the crunchers in under 10 minutes on the old version of the test is just insane. I still have problems getting my crunchers done under 15 minutes, so yeah.

Zack

[bradp]

I finished the 06B number punchers in 18:45.

You can count that as a novice time, AuSmith. :D

[hhhsmath06]

as pointless as those number crunchers are...they have to be there, otherwise it wouldn't be a "calculator apps" test...

for the new test, i can finish in 10...usually around 9 min 30 sec, and miss about 2?? and i think that's about avg in terms of state level competitions (in terms of speed); so i would say 8min 30 sec would be a good time for the new test?

as much as i # at s+g, i still think they are what this contest is all about.

q

[bradp]

From "Calculator: A Starter's Kit" by Leo Ramirez
"Using an RPN calculator and applying many of the techniques which I will present later Juan Raul Lopez was doing the "number crunchers" in approximately 13 minutes. By 1989, my top student Homero Gutierrez had lowered that time to 8 minutes 47 seconds. In 1992, George Lopez set the team record at 8 minutes and 20 seconds."

under 9 minutes on an old test? seems almost farfetched.

[Dunderwood]

Under 9 on the old tests isn't that far fetched. I was consistently under 10 minutes by the end of my senior year, but I never practiced as much as Mr. Ramirez's earlier students did. A lot of the top guys from that era focused exclusively on math team stuff. McHi was large enough back then that Mr. Ramirez could field a team of people who didn't have to worry about band or sports or other extracurriculars.