Scioly.org

antoine_ego wrote:MIT is releasing them, however, they've gone to great lengths to prevent trading.

Why is this?

Alex-RCHS wrote:

antoine_ego wrote:MIT is releasing them, however, they've gone to great lengths to prevent trading.

Why is this?

If the tests were released publicly, then a lot of other teams who would possibly able to go would actually be more likely to be like “Screw it, instead of going to the tournament, I’m going to wait until after the tournament when the tests will be released on their website and get my hands on those tests then and then just practice them at home instead of sacrificing so much time (and in a lot of cases, money) to actually attend the tournament” (that’s more of a paraphrase from what might actually be said but it gets the point across). So they don’t necessarily want these kinds of people to take advantage of that kind of tactic which, in their opinion (and several others’ opinions too), would be unfair to those teams who did make large sacrifices to come, and that’s why they’re keeping the tests private to those who went to the tournament.

Alex-RCHS wrote:

antoine_ego wrote:MIT is releasing them, however, they've gone to great lengths to prevent trading.

Why is this?

Because invitational tests have had this weird value put on them by competitors that has led to widespread engagement in a black market of sorts that has artificially increased their perceived worth, so in order for tournaments to reclaim control of where their resources go, they either have to go to massive lengths to prevent teams from engaging in private trading, or they have to public all tests immediately after the completion of a tournament, either on their website or through some other medium. In an ideal world, I think having more invitationals publicly release tests is a net positive; other competitions like quizbowl already do this with question banks, and you don't end up with bizarrely deep test trading markets where you can only get something if you give something. However, under the current climate, I can understand why invitationals would go the other direction. I would personally encourage more tournaments to either do what MIT has done, or make tests freely available to begin with, but not continue the current practice.

I'm already going to guess that someone is going to say "but part of what teams are paying for are the tests!" My response: it shouldn't be. Tests should not be valuable to the point where getting a test set is a significant part of the value of going to a tournament. Practicing the pressures and logistics of getting together a team, traveling to a tournament, and competing against other schools simultaneously should be the main value of invitationals. That's not to say seeing the material on tests is worthless, but it shouldn't be so high in comparison to everything else that we shouldn't be promoting the idea of free release of tests post-tournament.

pikachu4919 wrote:If the tests were released publicly, then a lot of other teams who would possibly able to go would actually be more likely to be like “Screw it, instead of going to the tournament, I’m going to wait until after the tournament when the tests will be released on their website and get my hands on those tests then and then just practice them at home instead of sacrificing so much time (and in a lot of cases, money) to actually attend the tournament” (that’s more of a paraphrase from what might actually be said but it gets the point across). So they don’t necessarily want these kinds of people to take advantage of that kind of tactic which, in their opinion (and several others’ opinions too), would be unfair to those teams who did make large sacrifices to come, and that’s why they’re keeping the tests private to those who went to the tournament.

In all honestly, nothing would make me happier than if one of these big tournaments decided to do it, and followed through even if some teams decided not to attend. Then, more of the teams that were actually going for the tournament experience could be the ones attending.

The above opinions reflect that of EastStroudsburg13, and not of Scioly.org. Also note that the above opinions only apply to invitationals, and not regionals, states, or nationals.

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:

Alex-RCHS wrote:

antoine_ego wrote:MIT is releasing them, however, they've gone to great lengths to prevent trading.

Why is this?

Because invitational tests have had this weird value put on them by competitors that has led to widespread engagement in a black market of sorts that has artificially increased their perceived worth, so in order for tournaments to reclaim control of where their resources go, they either have to go to massive lengths to prevent teams from engaging in private trading, or they have to public all tests immediately after the completion of a tournament, either on their website or through some other medium. In an ideal world, I think having more invitationals publicly release tests is a net positive; other competitions like quizbowl already do this with question banks, and you don't end up with bizarrely deep test trading markets where you can only get something if you give something. However, under the current climate, I can understand why invitationals would go the other direction. I would personally encourage more tournaments to either do what MIT has done, or make tests freely available to begin with, but not continue the current practice.

I'm already going to guess that someone is going to say "but part of what teams are paying for are the tests!" My response: it shouldn't be. Tests should not be valuable to the point where getting a test set is a significant part of the value of going to a tournament. Practicing the pressures and logistics of getting together a team, traveling to a tournament, and competing against other schools simultaneously should be the main value of invitationals. That's not to say seeing the material on tests is worthless, but it shouldn't be so high in comparison to everything else that we shouldn't be promoting the idea of free release of tests post-tournament.

pikachu4919 wrote:If the tests were released publicly, then a lot of other teams who would possibly able to go would actually be more likely to be like “Screw it, instead of going to the tournament, I’m going to wait until after the tournament when the tests will be released on their website and get my hands on those tests then and then just practice them at home instead of sacrificing so much time (and in a lot of cases, money) to actually attend the tournament” (that’s more of a paraphrase from what might actually be said but it gets the point across). So they don’t necessarily want these kinds of people to take advantage of that kind of tactic which, in their opinion (and several others’ opinions too), would be unfair to those teams who did make large sacrifices to come, and that’s why they’re keeping the tests private to those who went to the tournament.

In all honestly, nothing would make me happier than if one of these big tournaments decided to do it, and followed through even if some teams decided not to attend. Then, more of the teams that were actually going for the tournament experience could be the ones attending.

The above opinions reflect that of EastStroudsburg13, and not of Scioly.org. Also note that the above opinions only apply to invitationals, and not regionals, states, or nationals.

If anything I'd say the method they're using to prevent test trading is pretty clever.

EastStroudsburg13 wrote: In all honestly, nothing would make me happier than if one of these big tournaments decided to do it, and followed through even if some teams decided not to attend. Then, more of the teams that were actually going for the tournament experience could be the ones attending.

The above opinions reflect that of EastStroudsburg13, and not of Scioly.org. Also note that the above opinions only apply to invitationals, and not regionals, states, or nationals.

As one of the MIT Event Supervisors, I would have preferred they follow their previous practice of publicly posting all of the exams. MIT Science Olympiad runs the largest and most competitive tournament in the Eastern US, and possibly the whole country. Their tests are all provided by alumni who are trying to give back to Science Olympiad as a program. However, many teams are not financially able to attend and share in that experience. It seems to me that my effort would be more beneficial if my exam was shared openly in the same spirit as open license software.

Science Olympiad is a competition, but it is also about teamwork and learning. The latter two are better served (in my opinion) by open test sharing, rather than the complex test exchanges and trading networks that have blossomed over the past few years.

Please note these comments do not reflect the position of Solon High School Science Olympiad.

daydreamer0023 wrote:

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:

Alex-RCHS wrote: Why is this?

Because invitational tests have had this weird value put on them by competitors that has led to widespread engagement in a black market of sorts that has artificially increased their perceived worth, so in order for tournaments to reclaim control of where their resources go, they either have to go to massive lengths to prevent teams from engaging in private trading, or they have to public all tests immediately after the completion of a tournament, either on their website or through some other medium. In an ideal world, I think having more invitationals publicly release tests is a net positive; other competitions like quizbowl already do this with question banks, and you don't end up with bizarrely deep test trading markets where you can only get something if you give something. However, under the current climate, I can understand why invitationals would go the other direction. I would personally encourage more tournaments to either do what MIT has done, or make tests freely available to begin with, but not continue the current practice.

I'm already going to guess that someone is going to say "but part of what teams are paying for are the tests!" My response: it shouldn't be. Tests should not be valuable to the point where getting a test set is a significant part of the value of going to a tournament. Practicing the pressures and logistics of getting together a team, traveling to a tournament, and competing against other schools simultaneously should be the main value of invitationals. That's not to say seeing the material on tests is worthless, but it shouldn't be so high in comparison to everything else that we shouldn't be promoting the idea of free release of tests post-tournament.

pikachu4919 wrote:If the tests were released publicly, then a lot of other teams who would possibly able to go would actually be more likely to be like “Screw it, instead of going to the tournament, I’m going to wait until after the tournament when the tests will be released on their website and get my hands on those tests then and then just practice them at home instead of sacrificing so much time (and in a lot of cases, money) to actually attend the tournament” (that’s more of a paraphrase from what might actually be said but it gets the point across). So they don’t necessarily want these kinds of people to take advantage of that kind of tactic which, in their opinion (and several others’ opinions too), would be unfair to those teams who did make large sacrifices to come, and that’s why they’re keeping the tests private to those who went to the tournament.

In all honestly, nothing would make me happier than if one of these big tournaments decided to do it, and followed through even if some teams decided not to attend. Then, more of the teams that were actually going for the tournament experience could be the ones attending.

The above opinions reflect that of EastStroudsburg13, and not of Scioly.org. Also note that the above opinions only apply to invitationals, and not regionals, states, or nationals.

If anything I'd say the method they're using to prevent test trading is pretty clever.

Just wondering, how are they preventing test trading

Name wrote:

daydreamer0023 wrote:
If anything I'd say the method they're using to prevent test trading is pretty clever.

Just wondering, how are they preventing test trading

They are putting a unique watermark onto the tests for each team (e.g. the files sent to School A will have a watermark saying "School A"). If they then find those tests posted or traded publicly, they will no longer allow School A to attend MIT in the future.

Honestly, it was no surprise that Troy won the competition. The rest of the top 10 schools were in a fairly expected order, with Harrington maintaining their eternal third place. It really surprised and humored me that even though a Troy alumni made the Disease Detectives test, a team I've never really heard of beat Troy to the gold. I guess even Troy can lose in some ways.

nicholasmaurer wrote:

Name wrote:

daydreamer0023 wrote:
If anything I'd say the method they're using to prevent test trading is pretty clever.

Just wondering, how are they preventing test trading

They are putting a unique watermark onto the tests for each team (e.g. the files sent to School A will have a watermark saying "School A"). If they then find those tests posted or traded publicly, they will no longer allow School A to attend MIT in the future.

But MIT will still be posting all the tests to their website without a water mark right?

nicholasmaurer wrote:

EastStroudsburg13 wrote: In all honestly, nothing would make me happier than if one of these big tournaments decided to do it, and followed through even if some teams decided not to attend. Then, more of the teams that were actually going for the tournament experience could be the ones attending.

The above opinions reflect that of EastStroudsburg13, and not of Scioly.org. Also note that the above opinions only apply to invitationals, and not regionals, states, or nationals.

As one of the MIT Event Supervisors, I would have preferred they follow their previous practice of publicly posting all of the exams. MIT Science Olympiad runs the largest and most competitive tournament in the Eastern US, and possibly the whole country. Their tests are all provided by alumni who are trying to give back to Science Olympiad as a program. However, many teams are not financially able to attend and share in that experience. It seems to me that my effort would be more beneficial if my exam was shared openly in the same spirit as open license software.

Science Olympiad is a competition, but it is also about teamwork and learning. The latter two are better served (in my opinion) by open test sharing, rather than the complex test exchanges and trading networks that have blossomed over the past few years.

Please note these comments do not reflect the position of Solon High School Science Olympiad.

I would much prefer this as well, of the two options. I believe last year the exams were only published after nationals though, which as far as I saw, did not prevent private trading in the months before then. As the most prestigious invitational being run currently, MIT is in a unique place where they could likely release tests immediately after the tournament and not face too many repercussions, and could potentially start a trend in that regard.