On Feb. 12, I walked out of the testing center at Areteem Institute, with questions flooding my head over and over: “Did I get this question right?” “How many did I miss?” “Was I enough to qualify for USAPhO?”
Like the other 6,682 students who took the exam this year, I did not only want to know whether I qualified. I also wanted to know how I had performed. I wanted to know whether my practice paid off or if I had improved from last year.
However, even months later, I still do not know.
This year, the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), which runs the U.S. International Physics Team selection process, decided not to release individual F=ma scores to students. Instead, only students who qualified for the next round, the United States Physics Olympiad, were notified via email.
This new decision felt frustrating. For the students like me, who had spent months to a year preparing, the silence was difficult to accept. It isn’t merely about a statistic or number, but it is about reflecting improvement, effort, weakness and distance from a goal to be Olympian.
Still, I understood AAPT’s decision. F=ma, being a 25-question multiple-choice exam, all focused on mechanics. At that scale, small score differences may determine the qualification of a student, but not necessarily reflect the difference in students’ physics ability. By withholding individual scores, AAPT may be preventing students from obsessing over small numerical differences.
However, this decision raises a bigger question: removing scores also means removing feedback.
The purpose of competitions is not only to win or qualify for the next level, but also to learn where they stand. Student A, with a score of 15, stands on a very different position than student B, who scored a four on the exam, even if both did not qualify. These situations require very different responses. Student A might have just needed a little more practice or review, whereas Student B may need a completely new approach in studying for the exam.
If students don’t know their exact score, then how would they know if their approach in studying for the F=ma exam actually worked? How would they know what to change in their approach so that they have a better chance of qualifying next year?
In the end, AAPT’s decision is understandable, but it is also incomplete. It addresses the problem of students’ obsession with scores, but it creates a new problem: students lose the feedback they need to improve.
Academic competitions should not encourage toxic comparison, but they should also respect students’ desire to understand their own performance. A score does not define a student, but it can help them grow.
