Scioly.org

Hi, the other Forensics ES here,

I just wanted to make a short response to some of the points made about Forensics so far on the forums (and a lot of these are probably going be reiterations of my co-ES' points).

Only having two bunsen burners in the lab

I fullheartedly agree that this is inevitably going to be a significant hindrance to teams performing powder analysis. When there are only so many flame sources it will always be difficult to test everything in a timely manner. However, as was already pointed out by my co-ES, the lab we were in only had two gas outlets. Butane based burners are certainly an option but were not something that we had on hand at the time and seeing as how the lab was already crammed as it was, would be something that we likely wouldn't have room for either.

Missing Candles and Matches

There should have been a candle at each team's station and if there wasn't one at your station, I sincerely apologize. As for matches, they were to be shared between teams. We did, however, have issues with match and candle supply and this was only exacerbated by teams taking our candles and matches as they left. This may have been the cause of the issue and is something that can be easily addressed and was easily addressed in later timeslots as we came to realize that teams were taking our materials.

Contaminated Density Solutions

This is a reasonable criticism, seeing as it is definitely annoying to have contaminated solutions that complicate density testing. I would also like to point out that preparing fresh solutions for each timeslot and having enough for multiple teams would also take a lot of time that frankly, after making bagged samples for all 76 teams (as well as having extra sets for teams that may be missing samples) we didn't have in prep. Each density testing set had 6 solutions, 2 of which were easily replaceable (DI water and vegetable oil) and in the case of DI water, was something that we indeed replaced in between timeslots. However, the other 4 solutions require more time to prepare and are also more finicky (especially the IPA solution) and preparing 3 full sets for each timeslot or even every other timeslot would consume a lot of time and, while being something that could be worthwhile to consider in future tests, was not something that we were able to do owing to other matters of prep.

Small Room

To be frank, there wasn't much we could do about this as we only had so many lab benches in a single room. We tried to space teams out evenly but there's nothing we can do without more space. That being said, it was nice being in the same room as last year (even though I competed here last year instead) in terms of streamlining prep as we already knew the capabilities of the room itself.

Test being too long

This is a point that I have to respectfully take issue with. While this test was longer than last year's test (780 vs. 700 points), part of dealing with a test like this is being able to distinguish between what is important to the overall test and what isn't and how to optimize your performance. In that vein, I argue that it is entirely possible to, with enough practice and coordination between partners, do very well on the core elements of a test like this (i.e. the sample ID, crime scene physical evidence, and analysis/essay) largely through delegation of tasks between partners and trust in between the partners that what they are doing is largely accurate. I understand that it is hard to achieve this kind of trust this early in the year but I think it is something that should be a goal to be achieved over the course of the year.

Equally, from the perspective of an ES co-writing this test, a big part of our motivation in writing the test we did was to make it a Nationals-difficulty test without all of the idiosyncrasies associated with the Forensics test at Nationals. This was the motivation for us including juice chromatography this year, which is something the Nationals ES does as well, as well as our motivation for adding more difficult supplemental questions. Teams weren't supposed to finish the entire test, and some of the supplemental questions that we wrote (such as the question asking you to label bifurcations) were designed to waste time and push you to move on to other questions that were worth more.

Personally how I would have allocated my time would have been for me to focus on the ID (since I was very comfortable with ID when I did this event) and for my partner to focus on the crime scene analysis and to move on to help my partner with the crime scene evidence whenever I finished my ID (ideally around the halfway mark) but again, it naturally takes time to figure out a method that works for you and your partner and is by far not something that is expected in January but is a useful skill to practice on a test like this.

In summary, could we have made the test shorter? Yes. Would it have been easier to grade? Definitely. Despite that, I still feel from personal experience taking my co-ES' test last year at MIT (for context, I barely broke 50% on that test and was pretty tilted for the next couple hours), having a long test that is meant to push your limits as a pair is really valuable in figuring out how to improve your synergy and be more efficient as testers while also finding new avenues of exploration for supplemental knowledge and learning.

Quick thoughts as a first time ES

I can relate with a lot of these complaints about event logistics from my own time as a competitor but once you run a event, a lot of these issues are put in context. My experience co-running Forensics for 76 people was really a wake-up as to how much prep goes into running an event like this. This is not meant to devalue the preparation that competitors put into preparing for the tests we write but it is hard to run a event like Forensics truly perfectly (Nationals certainly doesn't) and it is hard to get everything prepared to the quality that we as competitors, would have liked to have had. There are always improvements that we can make and we will take these criticisms into account for future tests and these critiques in part, help us to be better ESes for you guys in the future as well.

Before I respond to your response, I should probably make a pair of clarifications: "Poorest run" was not the right phrasing to use, as you and your fellow ES did an amazing job with the test and proctoring. My issues never stemmed from what you guys did in preparation or the test description, but from the room and the fact that I tested later in the day, two things in which you had no control over. Also, I in no way want to tarnish the time and effort you put into making the test. There was no doubt that the test was of incredible quality, and your efforts should not be discounted in any way.

To keep brevity, I'll only respond a few points you made.

pikachu4919 wrote:Like I said in an earlier post, the lab used this year and last for MIT Forensics only has two gas outlets - thus, only two bunsen burners. There's nothing wrong with buying portable bunsen burners with butane bases, and it's something that could be looked into for future tournaments, but main point is, it's hard to fix something that you can't really have much control over, for sure.

This ties direly into the room situation. Me and my coaches discussed the reasons behind the Forensics room being relatively farther from all of the other events before comp, and that's not something you can control. I don't fault you or your fellow event supervisor for the lack of bunsen burners, as I was still able to complete all of the powder identification in the allotted time. To combine another statement with this one, you guys did do a very good job ensuring each team had the bags with every piece of evidence in it. The issue I had there was once again with the room, as we were packed together to the point that the samples of the team next to us and I got mixed and we had to sort through them, causing me to not find my bag 15, and it wasn't worth the point deduction for a bonus (although I did guess one right just trying to pick three unique powders). That occurrence was not your fault.

pikachu4919 wrote:You make a good point about the density solutions. They're tougher to make than you think though - the 46% IPA and each of the salt solutions have to be carefully measured and mixed to make sure they have the correct amounts to yield the correct densities. Even if we wanted to switch them out during the day if they got too messy, we probably wouldn't be able to be sure that we could do it quickly enough in between timeblocks to still save time to assess cleanup penalties and reset the stations altogether. I will say that I did try to switch out the distilled water density solution quite a few times throughout the day, but it didn't work out too much since the existing corn oil in the water from other testing definitely really messed with that.

I attempted to make a 46% Isopropyl Alcohol solution for our school testing. Let's just say we still don't have 46% IPA. You guys put in an extraordinary amount of work and it would be incredibly unreasonable to ask for 13, let alone 76, solutions of each density test solution. This issue is one that arises for any competitor who does forensics late in the day, and Forensics is one of those events that requires significant directions for safety and operating polymer and other physical tests. I appreciate the effort to switch out the distilled water as well as doing all of the other things you had to do throughout the day.

pikachu4919 wrote:Sorry about the candles and matches situation - that was just unfortunate in general because both were stolen or misused from stations randomly throughout the day (I noticed one team use an entire box of matches to do flame tests on the non-ignitable ends....sigh).

The matches situation is a fluke. Inexperienced teams don't always know better and that's just that. Nothing ever goes perfectly, especially in a lab based event like Forensics.

pikachu4919 wrote:Finally, tackling the test. Another competitor from this weekend messaged me asking how I would personally approach the test if I were taking it with a partner. So, I will share what I said to them here. First thing's for sure, more often than not, this event in general, due to the way it's structured, is impossible to do without splitting the test and putting complete trust in your partner to do their thing without you looking over their shoulder. It is true that the IDs are worth the most points, also a result of the way the event is structured.

Saying the test was too long may have been another thing I misspoke about. Yes, the test was incredibly long, but reflecting back I feel that all of the occurrences that happened set us back a little. It was my partner's first competition ever, and he was so excited to get in and do it, and he got flustered really easily when things he never had to deal with began to pile up. I think I could say the same for myself. That is no way a knock on your test, which I am once again reiterating was an extremely good exam. However, it would have been nice to have been able to truly grasp the crime. That's probably on me, but that's just my opinion.

pikachu4919 wrote:I will say, the nationals tests are also very long as well, but they generally pressure you more in terms of speed due to the generally large amount of easy trivia in the supplement rather than actual difficulty of the content (unless things have dramatically changed ever since I was competing).

Nope. Nationals tests haven't changed in a long time. And to be honest, I believe your test style is better suited for distinguishing top teams since you value quality over quantity, while nationals is more of a speed race of quick and easy information as you stated.

To conclude, great work! You should be proud! It's not easy running Forensics, and the little idiosyncrasies I pointed out have no reflection on how you guys did as event supervisors. The test was fun and there was not a single person in the hallway after that wasn't talking about how hard the test was. My experience likely mimics those who compete in the later time blocks of any invitational, and I hope that what I said does not come off as a discount to the extensive time and effort you and your fellow ES put into making Forensics a success

Piisgood164 wrote: Test being too long

This is a point that I have to respectfully take issue with. While this test was longer than last year's test (780 vs. 700 points), part of dealing with a test like this is being able to distinguish between what is important to the overall test and what isn't and how to optimize your performance. In that vein, I argue that it is entirely possible to, with enough practice and coordination between partners, do very well on the core elements of a test like this (i.e. the sample ID, crime scene physical evidence, and analysis/essay) largely through delegation of tasks between partners and trust in between the partners that what they are doing is largely accurate. I understand that it is hard to achieve this kind of trust this early in the year but I think it is something that should be a goal to be achieved over the course of the year.

Equally, from the perspective of an ES co-writing this test, a big part of our motivation in writing the test we did was to make it a Nationals-difficulty test without all of the idiosyncrasies associated with the Forensics test at Nationals. This was the motivation for us including juice chromatography this year, which is something the Nationals ES does as well, as well as our motivation for adding more difficult supplemental questions. Teams weren't supposed to finish the entire test, and some of the supplemental questions that we wrote (such as the question asking you to label bifurcations) were designed to waste time and push you to move on to other questions that were worth more.

I have to respectfully disagree with this style of tricky, hardcore test writing. When you do things like this, you're assessing a teams test-taking strategies and not their actual knowledge of Forensics.

I don't think there's anything wrong with writing an extremely long test, and based on what you've said it sounds like the Forensics tests that you wrote was incredibly valuable for the competitors. But making such difficult questions that it was (by your own admission) in the teams' best interest to skip them quickly, rather than actually attempt them, is contrary to the point of the event.

jaggie34 wrote: Fermi: Very well written test with a good level of difficulty, there were some oddities in the format (i.e. a question being asked differently in the italics vs. the actual question as a kind of trick?) but overall a very good test.

yea sorry idk what i was thinking when i decided to do those type of questions. in hindsight they only served to make the test confusing, but hopefully it wasnt too bad.

slowpoke wrote:

jaggie34 wrote: Fermi: Very well written test with a good level of difficulty, there were some oddities in the format (i.e. a question being asked differently in the italics vs. the actual question as a kind of trick?) but overall a very good test.

yea sorry idk what i was thinking when i decided to do those type of questions. in hindsight they only served to make the test confusing, but hopefully it wasnt too bad.

No worries, I still really enjoyed the test, especially the butter question!

I have to respectfully disagree with this style of tricky, hardcore test writing. When you do things like this, you're assessing a teams test-taking strategies and not their actual knowledge of Forensics.

I don't think there's anything wrong with writing an extremely long test, and based on what you've said it sounds like the Forensics tests that you wrote was incredibly valuable for the competitors. But making such difficult questions that it was (by your own admission) in the teams' best interest to skip them quickly, rather than actually attempt them, is contrary to the point of the event.

Yes, while writing some difficult questions that are in part, designed to be skipped over and end up not testing knowledge as much, most of these questions were for bonus points. If you look at the point distribution in the test, the vast majority of the points on the test were given for the core topics that I discussed in my previous post (sample ID, crime scene physical evidence, essay/analysis) and these questions meant to push teams' test-taking strategies were peripheral and not related to the crime directly (hence their label as supplemental questions). Moreover, the vast majority of our supplemental questions were not designed to cause teams to waste time and were more designed around providing challenging applications of the Forensics materials to both real world Forensics or to test competitor knowledge and ability to apply that knowledge to specific techniques used in Forensics. Thus, I would argue that it was appropriate for us to have included the supplemental questions that we did, especially given the caliber of the teams attending and the value of this sort of test as a learning tool after the fact.

Hey everyone,

I was the event supervisor for Fossils this past weekend at MIT. As other people have stated, the exams will be publicly released but I just wanted to post a little debrief of the event on Saturday.

Taking into account what many people have informed me personally or otherwise regarding what they wish to see from exams, I decided to make an exam that had a good mix of challenging geology questions, what is typical on Science Olympiad exams, and what can be expected from Nationals.

I want to congratulate everyone who took the exam for making it through. I understand that it was difficult, but it is my honest belief that reviewing the exam post-competition will make everyone more knowledgable about Fossils. A special congratulations to LASA, Harriton, and Clements who finished in the Top 3 and were extremely close in scores -- it seems that these three teams are about equivalent in their paleontology knowledge and in the end, the winner was determined by who made the least silly mistakes (like stating Megalodon instead of C. megalodon or ichthyosaur vs icthyosauria, etc).

I have to thank the planning committee for making this event a reality and acquiring all the specimens needed since real specimens do make the event much better and more fun, as was stated on my evaluation survey. And I have to thank my awesome volunteers who not only knew some of the information (esp. A.X.) but were diligent in grading and making sure everything was run smoothly!

Overall, no one team completely aced the identification portion of the event and most teams incorrectly differentiated between Acer and Platanus, Ammonoidea and Nautiloidea, etc.

Here are what people thought of the exam,
Rules followed? -- 95% Yes, 5% No -- important to note that these no's were the result of competitors believing field guides were allowed and lagerstatte were not on the rules.
Difficulty 80% Hard, 20% Good -- There were indeed some stations/questions that were extremely challenging such as my Uranium-Lead dating question which no team successfully solved. This was a question from my Geochemistry homework in college but it is an amazing question that makes sure you really understand dating (if anyone has questions about this, please email me). The vast majority of teams got 0 points on Station 15 which was a trace fossil station and involved calculating the speed and other metrics of a Grallator. This station also involved understanding what each trackway/trace fossil indicated about the paleoenvironment. I tried to include a good number of questions that asked about paleoenvironment as this is something that is very pertinent to geology. I want to give a shoutout to the teams that got my settling column question correct -- this was a conceptually challenging question and those of you that got it right really understand the concepts.
What made the exam hard? 29% Length, 21% Content, and 50% Timing -- I agree that the timing was not ideal but this helps separate the teams that have the information in the binder and those that have actually internalized the information.
Quality 76% gave favorable responses (One of the best, Excellent, and Good), 16% gave average, and 8% gave negative responses (poor and horrible) -- While not perfect, these are good numbers. Surveys are always subject to emotional answers and depending on how well a team thought they did, the responses may be inaccurate (a team that didn't do well may have given poor or did well and gave an excellent).
Prepared for future competitions 97% Yes, 3% No -- This is arguably the most important metric in my mind as I want everyone to be better prepared for what lies ahead while giving competitors an insight into what real geology is like as geology is often left out of school curricula (or is hardly touched).

Things that people thought needed to be improved
Lack of chairs -- In my experience with rocks and minerals, it's best if the chairs are left out as the chairs slow down rotations. Of course, if a team needed a chair for whatever reason (medical, personal), they would've been given one. Last year, the chairs were removed midday as a student in a wheelchair needed extra space to navigate between the tables.
Teeth -- Teeth are a great way to test if competitors truly know their identification, but it's also important to note that finding a complete skeleton or even a skull is rare in the field and many times what's found is teeth or small bone fragments. Of course some teeth are impossible to differentiate between such as Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus but in general they are distinguishable.
Moving items/specimens -- There were some issues with image packets and specimens being moved around, next time I will definitely tape image packets onto the table and place specimens inside a box to limit their wandering. I sincerely apologize for anyone this may have affected and moving forward, please please speak up if this happens. We will make sure you get those items or be compensated score-wise for this.

Once exams are released, please email me (varunscs@sas.upenn.edu) if you have any questions regarding anything.
[I posted in the wrong thread earlier, sorry bout that]

will926ok3645 wrote:Before I respond to your response, I should probably make a pair of clarifications: "Poorest run" was not the right phrasing to use, as you and your fellow ES did an amazing job with the test and proctoring. My issues never stemmed from what you guys did in preparation or the test description, but from the room and the fact that I tested later in the day, two things in which you had no control over. Also, I in no way want to tarnish the time and effort you put into making the test. There was no doubt that the test was of incredible quality, and your efforts should not be discounted in any way.

To keep brevity, I'll only respond a few points you made.

pikachu4919 wrote:Like I said in an earlier post, the lab used this year and last for MIT Forensics only has two gas outlets - thus, only two bunsen burners. There's nothing wrong with buying portable bunsen burners with butane bases, and it's something that could be looked into for future tournaments, but main point is, it's hard to fix something that you can't really have much control over, for sure.

This ties direly into the room situation. Me and my coaches discussed the reasons behind the Forensics room being relatively farther from all of the other events before comp, and that's not something you can control. I don't fault you or your fellow event supervisor for the lack of bunsen burners, as I was still able to complete all of the powder identification in the allotted time. To combine another statement with this one, you guys did do a very good job ensuring each team had the bags with every piece of evidence in it. The issue I had there was once again with the room, as we were packed together to the point that the samples of the team next to us and I got mixed and we had to sort through them, causing me to not find my bag 15, and it wasn't worth the point deduction for a bonus (although I did guess one right just trying to pick three unique powders). That occurrence was not your fault.

pikachu4919 wrote:You make a good point about the density solutions. They're tougher to make than you think though - the 46% IPA and each of the salt solutions have to be carefully measured and mixed to make sure they have the correct amounts to yield the correct densities. Even if we wanted to switch them out during the day if they got too messy, we probably wouldn't be able to be sure that we could do it quickly enough in between timeblocks to still save time to assess cleanup penalties and reset the stations altogether. I will say that I did try to switch out the distilled water density solution quite a few times throughout the day, but it didn't work out too much since the existing corn oil in the water from other testing definitely really messed with that.

I attempted to make a 46% Isopropyl Alcohol solution for our school testing. Let's just say we still don't have 46% IPA. You guys put in an extraordinary amount of work and it would be incredibly unreasonable to ask for 13, let alone 76, solutions of each density test solution. This issue is one that arises for any competitor who does forensics late in the day, and Forensics is one of those events that requires significant directions for safety and operating polymer and other physical tests. I appreciate the effort to switch out the distilled water as well as doing all of the other things you had to do throughout the day.

pikachu4919 wrote:Sorry about the candles and matches situation - that was just unfortunate in general because both were stolen or misused from stations randomly throughout the day (I noticed one team use an entire box of matches to do flame tests on the non-ignitable ends....sigh).

The matches situation is a fluke. Inexperienced teams don't always know better and that's just that. Nothing ever goes perfectly, especially in a lab based event like Forensics.

pikachu4919 wrote:Finally, tackling the test. Another competitor from this weekend messaged me asking how I would personally approach the test if I were taking it with a partner. So, I will share what I said to them here. First thing's for sure, more often than not, this event in general, due to the way it's structured, is impossible to do without splitting the test and putting complete trust in your partner to do their thing without you looking over their shoulder. It is true that the IDs are worth the most points, also a result of the way the event is structured.

Saying the test was too long may have been another thing I misspoke about. Yes, the test was incredibly long, but reflecting back I feel that all of the occurrences that happened set us back a little. It was my partner's first competition ever, and he was so excited to get in and do it, and he got flustered really easily when things he never had to deal with began to pile up. I think I could say the same for myself. That is no way a knock on your test, which I am once again reiterating was an extremely good exam. However, it would have been nice to have been able to truly grasp the crime. That's probably on me, but that's just my opinion.

pikachu4919 wrote:I will say, the nationals tests are also very long as well, but they generally pressure you more in terms of speed due to the generally large amount of easy trivia in the supplement rather than actual difficulty of the content (unless things have dramatically changed ever since I was competing).

Nope. Nationals tests haven't changed in a long time. And to be honest, I believe your test style is better suited for distinguishing top teams since you value quality over quantity, while nationals is more of a speed race of quick and easy information as you stated.

To conclude, great work! You should be proud! It's not easy running Forensics, and the little idiosyncrasies I pointed out have no reflection on how you guys did as event supervisors. The test was fun and there was not a single person in the hallway after that wasn't talking about how hard the test was. My experience likely mimics those who compete in the later time blocks of any invitational, and I hope that what I said does not come off as a discount to the extensive time and effort you and your fellow ES put into making Forensics a success

It’s OK. Understood. Honestly, sorry if we came off a bit harsh, we tried to aim more at clarifying reasons behind why things were the way we were. I do know what you mean too - I was once assigned to the final timeblock out of 6 of them total as a competitor in this event too, and that was at Nationals my senior year (yikes x infinity), and in that moment, knowing that this was my best event and the one in which I had the biggest shot at a medal out of all the ones I was competing in, I definitely did feel the paranoia of contamination sink in as I entered the lab to face Woz one last time. There’s no denying that those who do get stuck with the last block do have concerns over these things, since I once had them too. I’ve progressively found out through my supervising experience how logistically hard it is to fix the issues that I wish could have been fixed while I was competing, and if I had to be honest, I’m not sure when, if ever, I’ll finally come up with an optimal solution to it. But that’s something to work on, and feedback like yours does help us consider ways to make further progress towards finding a solution to the problem. I’ll definitely say that I don’t blame ya either - my high school self definitely would have probably given similar criticisms as you, and I think my time in Division D has definitely helped me realize how hard countering these issues can really be. Granted, that’s now motivation to try to solve the existing problems, which will not necessarily be a super quick fix either.

That being said, anyone else have spicy event ratings for us supervisors?

(btw, don't be afraid to hit us with your best shot on these)

Piisgood164 wrote:

I have to respectfully disagree with this style of tricky, hardcore test writing. When you do things like this, you're assessing a teams test-taking strategies and not their actual knowledge of Forensics.

I don't think there's anything wrong with writing an extremely long test, and based on what you've said it sounds like the Forensics tests that you wrote was incredibly valuable for the competitors. But making such difficult questions that it was (by your own admission) in the teams' best interest to skip them quickly, rather than actually attempt them, is contrary to the point of the event.

Yes, while writing some difficult questions that are in part, designed to be skipped over and end up not testing knowledge as much, most of these questions were for bonus points. If you look at the point distribution in the test, the vast majority of the points on the test were given for the core topics that I discussed in my previous post (sample ID, crime scene physical evidence, essay/analysis) and these questions meant to push teams' test-taking strategies were peripheral and not related to the crime directly (hence their label as supplemental questions). Moreover, the vast majority of our supplemental questions were not designed to cause teams to waste time and were more designed around providing challenging applications of the Forensics materials to both real world Forensics or to test competitor knowledge and ability to apply that knowledge to specific techniques used in Forensics. Thus, I would argue that it was appropriate for us to have included the supplemental questions that we did, especially given the caliber of the teams attending and the value of this sort of test as a learning tool after the fact.

Another Forensics competitor here who partook in the MIT gauntlet this year!

My take is that, given how stable Forensics rules are from year to year, the trivia questions on in-depth knowledge of Forensics are a breath of fresh air, even if they do add to the length of the test. They give you a way to gain back points you might have missed on ID by showing that you really do understand event content versus pure regurgitation of ID/analysis/recycled questions on the Nationals exam. So kudos to the challenge.

I was in 4th block, so although some plastic density solution contamination might have inevitably happened (my partner had some interesting results...), I still thought that the test is among the best I've taken and the event was quite well run, given that it was Forensics of course. For context, we received slightly less than half the available points, though (as always) there were some stupid mistakes we made that prevented us from getting more. So overall a 9.5/10 rating.

So for the rest of my event ratings...

Circuit Lab was well run and, as mentioned previously by others, the mix between difficult and simple questions were good and the lab was well-run. I really don't have much complaints other than me somehow being confused enough to mess up the first lab station almost entirely - which is my fault. 10/10.

Protein Modeling was well-run, in terms of impound, though we got our builds back a little late. I was focused on the on-site build most of the time, so I can't attest to the exam quality. I wish it were more clear that the wire ends of the material they were using instead of mini-toober for the on-site build was supposed to be for the C/N termini, because then I second guessed myself when it came to the length of the protein. :/ Either than that, not much else to say. 9/10.

Hey everyone,

I've posted the MIT Chemistry Lab exam https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... bKiJHNPHt_.

All comments welcome!

Idk what the raw score policy will be (it's TBD), but for the time being, here's an axisless graph of scores.

https://imgur.com/qWXS4ds (IDK if image feature works since it's not showing up for me.)