Scioly.org

Alex-RCHS wrote:So, uh... What happened to Harriton?

Also, congrats to ABRHS and gg to the rest of MA.

Build bombs seem to be the bulk of it, but they are definitely weaker than last year (I can confirm that this was a full strength team).

Unome wrote:

Alex-RCHS wrote:So, uh... What happened to Harriton?

Also, congrats to ABRHS and gg to the rest of MA.

Build bombs seem to be the bulk of it, but they are definitely weaker than last year (I can confirm that this was a full strength team).

There was a similar issue with Clements.

MIT this year was one of the best competitions I’ve ever been to in terms of content. The build testing rigs/facilities were great. The tests I took were a challenge unlike anything I’d seen. Overall a great tournament.

Except for one major issue. I had 3 scheduled build events. I wasn’t able to test any of them in the block I scheduled. The build testing facilities (Mission Possible tables, boomi rig, sounds room) were able to accommodate far too few people. For example, boomi testing normally takes ~6 minutes per team, and MIT has six 60 minute blocks. But there are 70 teams at MIT. They had 1 boomi testing rig. It doesn’t add up.

Build tests were constantly backed up; my mission test was pushed into my boomi block, which forced me to test it after block six, but my sounds build test also ran after it’s scheduled block 6.

Each of the actual testing facilities were great, but MIT needs more of them if they want to stay this big.

Similar thoughts as above, the person at mission check in told me that they werent following the schedule block thing, and that there was unlikely to be any space in the time block I signed up for. She got us in after we told her that we had events the last two blocks and couldnt come back.
Forensics... 2 bunsen burners? several people hogged those. also, a mixture certainly threw people (I didnt even bother). Insanely long test (but will be good for learning), but am surprised at how high I placed since I only wrote half a sentence for the analysis section.
Fossils... insane. So many identifications, so little time. Maybe it was a little too many IDs at one station for 2 min 45 seconds? But in a way it's kinda fair, if you know several really well, you get the opportunity to show that, instead of it being luck of the draw.

C8H10N4O2! wrote: Forensics... 2 bunsen burners?

One of the two MIT Forensics supervisors here! As far as we knew, there are only two gas outlets in that lab. You can only have as many Bunsen burners as there are gas outlets.

Apologies for all the innocent souls that I may have taken today with the forensics test I put together with my formidable co-ES... as we said, our emails are on your answer sheet, and you can talk to us about anything.

Anybody have any event reviews?

The people who ran WS were incredibly nice- I just wish they had had it in DuPont as they did back a couple years ago.

That Astro test was amazingly written.

Disease Detectives - the test was unlike any other Disease test I've taken before, and quite difficult as well. I'm impressed with how the test writer managed to ask questions on stuff that doesn't show up on other tests at all. Scores were pretty low for a Disease test for this event. Coming out of this event, my partner said something along the lines of, "I think everyone finished this test, but I don't know whether any of it is correct." I definitely did not feel good about this test walking out of it.

Geologic Mapping - the same test writer as UGA, I think? It was essentially a longer version of the UGA test, with a similar format. He writes really good tests. It was a very long test and had a lot of application questions; time-management was pretty key in my opinion. I wish we were allowed to write on the test packets, though, especially given the amount of math problems asked! I ended up doing all of my work on the back of the pages in my binder.

Write It Do It - the structure was a little simpler than the one given at MIT last year, but still difficult. Thankfully they used more common materials instead of those dreaded skill sticks... I thought it was a good, complex WIDI, with a lot of materials people are familiar with (pipe-cleaners, straws) as well as some that were less familiar to me.

poonicle wrote:Geologic Mapping - the same test writer as UGA, I think? It was essentially a longer version of the UGA test, with a similar format. He writes really good tests. It was a very long test and had a lot of application questions; time-management was pretty key in my opinion. I wish we were allowed to write on the test packets, though, especially given the amount of math problems asked! I ended up doing all of my work on the back of the pages in my binder.

Glad you liked it. Printing restrictions unfortunately mean that we have to reuse test packets and image sheets for each session, hence why we couldn't have anyone writing on them. Since it's a binder event I'm not usually concerned about space to write work - as you mentioned, teams can always just bring scratch paper (and I left the back of the answer sheet blank as well). I haven't had a good opportunity to vary my format for Geomaps yet, and the largest and most prestigious invitational in the nation was not going to be that occasion, especially since I wasn't certain how fast grading would go (it turned out to be quite fast, I finished at around 4:30 with an assistant grading the multiple choice). I'm not too concerned about it right now, since all of my Geomaps tests so far are public.

does anyone know about the winning build scores?