Conclusions 

Further studies

We could further improve our study by looking at :

Why these ideas should be implemented at the 2019 French Physicists' Tournament

As we have shown above, the comparison of grades between tournaments serves as a discriminating experiment, just like we do in physics !

Let's recap the points we made:

Regarding the overall environment of the tournament:
Regarding the grading procedure at the tournament:
  • Reporter–Opponent : As the Opponent cannot present any additional result, this role is bounded by the presentation content of the Reporter. If the Reporter is good, the Opponent will have more points to discuss whereas if the Reporter's presentation lacks important details, the Opponent will not be able to present new ideas without being told that he presented his own results.
  • Reporter–Reviewer : Same reasons as before, if the Reporter's presentation is good it is easier for the Reviewer to lead the discussion in a productive direction.
  • Opponent–Reviewer : There comes a trickier problem, the Opponent and Reviewer role are the two most correlated roles. That comes from the fact that the two roles are quite hard to distinguish. Even though the Reviewer has a clear incentive to lead the discussion, the fact that the Opponent does not bring anything new leads the spectator to wonder what are their differences.

Realistic ideas to implement:

When we thought about ideas to better the tournament, we knew that it would be crucial to keep its spirit intact, we therefore believe to have come to a realistic list that can be implement in the next edition :