Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2019
Posted: January 16th, 2019, 11:17 am
I suppose I might as well do some event reviews.
Anatomy and Physiology: 1/5. I think this is the event that wins "mostly poorly run of the day." The numbering was consistently off (presumably because the whole test was thrown together last minute) and numbering changes were being announced throughout the block. This was even worse at the three-minute stations—anyone else who did A&P will know how painful that kidney model was when you had to refer to a separate sheet to figure out which numbers on the model matched up with which spots on the answer sheet. We also couldn't split up or write on the test, so partners were forced to do the test together. Having ~70 multiple choice that are all "select all that apply" with on partial credit is incredibly frustrating and results in multiple choice scores more often being decided by lucky guesses than on actual skill—plus the fact that many teams didn't even realize they were select-all-that-apply in the first place. The grading was also inconsistent between both our teams, and points were added up wrongly on numerous occasions. I didn't think you could get worse from last year's A&P test, but I guess I was wrong.
Designer Genes: 4/5. An easy test. There was nothing wrong with it (I rather enjoyed some of the more creative questions), but it didn't come with the difficulty that MIT tests are renowned for. The ES was considerate enough to give everyone two copies of the test packet, one for each partner. Wasn't prepared for the select-all-that-apply questions on inherited diseases.
Forensics: 5/5. Solid forensics fare. Nothing new or surprising (aside from the fact that I still have no clue whodunnit), but high-quality and run well. The very small quantities of materials got frustrating sometimes, but I think it was an appropriate challenge—although, is it possible to identify all the plastics with only three pieces? (I didn't even touch them during the competition.) My only big complaint is that one team brought all their bags of powder and fiber samples over to one of the Bunsen burners and basically set up camp there, refusing to let anyone else share it. Perhaps a rule against that could be enforced next year.
I didn't do Chem Lab this competition, but looking at the test, it seems pretty good. Though there isn't much math, a lot of the questions are topically very interesting. I do agree that the heavy emphasis on MO theory might have been a bit too far removed from the event description, but I've seen much, much worse.
I also heard Thermo was run poorly because one of our teams received water at a temperature at 55 degrees, which is outside the allowable range and screwed up the predictions.
Anatomy and Physiology: 1/5. I think this is the event that wins "mostly poorly run of the day." The numbering was consistently off (presumably because the whole test was thrown together last minute) and numbering changes were being announced throughout the block. This was even worse at the three-minute stations—anyone else who did A&P will know how painful that kidney model was when you had to refer to a separate sheet to figure out which numbers on the model matched up with which spots on the answer sheet. We also couldn't split up or write on the test, so partners were forced to do the test together. Having ~70 multiple choice that are all "select all that apply" with on partial credit is incredibly frustrating and results in multiple choice scores more often being decided by lucky guesses than on actual skill—plus the fact that many teams didn't even realize they were select-all-that-apply in the first place. The grading was also inconsistent between both our teams, and points were added up wrongly on numerous occasions. I didn't think you could get worse from last year's A&P test, but I guess I was wrong.
Designer Genes: 4/5. An easy test. There was nothing wrong with it (I rather enjoyed some of the more creative questions), but it didn't come with the difficulty that MIT tests are renowned for. The ES was considerate enough to give everyone two copies of the test packet, one for each partner. Wasn't prepared for the select-all-that-apply questions on inherited diseases.
Forensics: 5/5. Solid forensics fare. Nothing new or surprising (aside from the fact that I still have no clue whodunnit), but high-quality and run well. The very small quantities of materials got frustrating sometimes, but I think it was an appropriate challenge—although, is it possible to identify all the plastics with only three pieces? (I didn't even touch them during the competition.) My only big complaint is that one team brought all their bags of powder and fiber samples over to one of the Bunsen burners and basically set up camp there, refusing to let anyone else share it. Perhaps a rule against that could be enforced next year.
I didn't do Chem Lab this competition, but looking at the test, it seems pretty good. Though there isn't much math, a lot of the questions are topically very interesting. I do agree that the heavy emphasis on MO theory might have been a bit too far removed from the event description, but I've seen much, much worse.
I also heard Thermo was run poorly because one of our teams received water at a temperature at 55 degrees, which is outside the allowable range and screwed up the predictions.