Pennsylvania 2014

[earthbot25]

Congratulations to Penncrest!

[solakmagic]

Now that the dust has settled, congratulation to all of the teams for a great competition--regardless of how it all fluxed out, everyone should be proud of their performance!

[I+-[+]-+I]

The corrected scores are now up.

http://www.juniata.edu/projects/scioly/

Thanks
I remember being very surprised about the new results. I am so happy because our team actually went up two spots in the ranking.
Question: Do you know which places get physical prizes (like trophys and stuff).

[Toms_42]

The corrected scores are now up.

http://www.juniata.edu/projects/scioly/

Thanks
I remember being very surprised about the new results. I am so happy because our team actually went up two spots in the ranking.
Question: Do you know which places get physical prizes (like trophys and stuff).

5+ for individual prizes.
I believe top 8 teams got trophies.

[Atomicbob11]

With the new results, Congrats to Penncrest for coming out on top. Definitely a little disappointing for Harriton nonetheless, however both teams still are going to Nationals. Make PA proud!

[AlphaTauri]

Wow, congrats to Penncrest on their first State title! (but oh nooo, the 16 year streak is dead :[ )

Represent us well at Nationals with Harriton!

Looking at the scores, seems like Harriton (and several other good teams) got screwed by ExpDes... which was apparently really weird anyway. I have a feeling that when I run the numbers, that event's going to stick out (I run a chi-square for association/independence on the event rankings versus the team's final rank... probably not the most statistically correct method, but it seemed like an impartial and fairly easy stat test to run.)

EDIT: Turns out in addition to the chi-square association/indepedence test, I also run a r^2 correlation, for some reason that I'm sure I knew when I did stats, but completely escapes me now. Anyway, results indicate ExpDes was indeed the "worst" overall predictor of a team's final placing by a pretty good margin, while DynPlan was the "best" (followed pretty closely by Astro).

[solakmagic]

Wow, congrats to Penncrest on their first State title! (but oh nooo, the 16 year streak is dead :[ )

Represent us well at Nationals with Harriton!

Looking at the scores, seems like Harriton (and several other good teams) got screwed by ExpDes... which was apparently really weird anyway. I have a feeling that when I run the numbers, that event's going to stick out (I run a chi-square for association/independence on the event rankings versus the team's final rank... probably not the most statistically correct method, but it seemed like an impartial and fairly easy stat test to run.)

EDIT: Turns out in addition to the chi-square association/indepedence test, I also run a r^2 correlation, for some reason that I'm sure I knew when I did stats, but completely escapes me now. Anyway, results indicate ExpDes was indeed the "worst" overall predictor of a team's final placing by a pretty good margin, while DynPlan was the "best" (followed pretty closely by Astro).

The ED absolutely seemed to throw things off for a lot of teams. Myself and my two teammates on the event left feeling very confident in our performance and we were surprised with our thirteenth place finish. Understandably, the competition is quite rigorous, and thirteenth isn't at all a bad score compared to some of the other surprises. We will be contacting the proctor in hopes of gaining information on what we did wrong--hopefully that will shed some light on the situation.

[earthbot25]

Wow, congrats to Penncrest on their first State title! (but oh nooo, the 16 year streak is dead :[ )

Represent us well at Nationals with Harriton!

Looking at the scores, seems like Harriton (and several other good teams) got screwed by ExpDes... which was apparently really weird anyway. I have a feeling that when I run the numbers, that event's going to stick out (I run a chi-square for association/independence on the event rankings versus the team's final rank... probably not the most statistically correct method, but it seemed like an impartial and fairly easy stat test to run.)

EDIT: Turns out in addition to the chi-square association/indepedence test, I also run a r^2 correlation, for some reason that I'm sure I knew when I did stats, but completely escapes me now. Anyway, results indicate ExpDes was indeed the "worst" overall predictor of a team's final placing by a pretty good margin, while DynPlan was the "best" (followed pretty closely by Astro).

The ED absolutely seemed to throw things off for a lot of teams. Myself and my two teammates on the event left feeling very confident in our performance and we were surprised with our thirteenth place finish. Understandably, the competition is quite rigorous, and thirteenth isn't at all a bad score compared to some of the other surprises. We will be contacting the proctor in hopes of gaining information on what we did wrong--hopefully that will shed some light on the situation.

unfortunately it seems like we shouldn't keep our hopes up for detailed information

[EastStroudsburg13]

The corrected scores are now up.

http://www.juniata.edu/projects/scioly/

Thanks
I remember being very surprised about the new results. I am so happy because our team actually went up two spots in the ranking.
Question: Do you know which places get physical prizes (like trophys and stuff).

5+ for individual prizes.
I believe top 8 teams got trophies.

Top 6 get trophies.

[scramblingman]

Wow, congrats to Penncrest on their first State title! (but oh nooo, the 16 year streak is dead :[ )

Represent us well at Nationals with Harriton!

Looking at the scores, seems like Harriton (and several other good teams) got screwed by ExpDes... which was apparently really weird anyway. I have a feeling that when I run the numbers, that event's going to stick out (I run a chi-square for association/independence on the event rankings versus the team's final rank... probably not the most statistically correct method, but it seemed like an impartial and fairly easy stat test to run.)

EDIT: Turns out in addition to the chi-square association/indepedence test, I also run a r^2 correlation, for some reason that I'm sure I knew when I did stats, but completely escapes me now. Anyway, results indicate ExpDes was indeed the "worst" overall predictor of a team's final placing by a pretty good margin, while DynPlan was the "best" (followed pretty closely by Astro).

The ED absolutely seemed to throw things off for a lot of teams. Myself and my two teammates on the event left feeling very confident in our performance and we were surprised with our thirteenth place finish. Understandably, the competition is quite rigorous, and thirteenth isn't at all a bad score compared to some of the other surprises. We will be contacting the proctor in hopes of gaining information on what we did wrong--hopefully that will shed some light on the situation.

my team contacted the proctor, and we didn't particularly learn anything other than that it was more subjectively graded than usual. don't keep your hopes up for detailed information, and like you, my group was way more confident than the placing we received in that event.

Personally I'm very disappointed for the way experimental design turned out. My group and I practiced very hard for this event, as I'm sure the teams of many other schools did. The scores for this event are purely based on the rubric, and even though my group knew exactly what we were doing and followed the rubric to the fine print, we, like many of the top teams (Harriton, Rustin, Conestoga) got placed above 25th. It makes absolutely no sense, and I would really like to be given some kind of explanation as to why this happened. I know it also screwed many other teams over, meaning something probably went wrong with the overall grading. I really hope there is some kind of closure for this, so all of the teams that thought they did well know what went wrong.