Scioly.org

fizzle wrote: As useful as the test difficulty must be for Nationals-tier teams, we don't get much out of it as a team competing locally.

MIT is an amazing tournament, my students' have always enjoyed it, and I have been an ES there for the past three years. With that being said, I honestly have questions about the test value even to Nationals-tier teams. The question difficulty at MIT is unlike anything you see at a State or National tournament, which is both good and bad.

On the one hand, it is an excellent opportunity for "high altitude training." On the other, I think it may be of limited value in practicing what students typically need to know, and may not be as useful for states/nationals preparation as a more typical invitational.

Ultimately, I know my students' love the chance to feel challenged and learn new things - which is why we have chosen to attend in years past.

Discussion time,

Regarding the fact that several teams aren't returning to MIT this year, I can think of several possible explanations, which of course may overlap:

1) The date change resulted in conflicts that are more severe than in the past.
2) MIT tests are not as valuable to top teams as is generally believed.
3) Watermarking doesn't work, and tests circulate easily anyway.
4) The uncertainty in bringing two teams is a deterrent for schools who are dependent on being able to bring two teams.

Thoughts? Analysis of these factors' relative importance? Additional explanations?

Unome wrote: 1) The date change resulted in conflicts that are more severe than in the past.

Major factor for Solon HS - we would still be going if it was on 1/19/19.

Unome wrote: 2) MIT tests are not as valuable to top teams as is generally believed.

I think they are less valuable for state/national tournament preparation than is "generally believed" - that is not to say they lack significant value.

Unome wrote: 3) Watermarking doesn't work, and tests circulate easily anyway.

As an ES I'm not a fan of the watermarking. In practice, I don't think the tests leaked too widely before the official release date (although I had no reason to look since I had my own copy).

Unome wrote: 4) The uncertainty in bringing two teams is a deterrent for schools who are dependent on being able to bring two teams.

Definitely a concern for us and others, but we would certainly attempt to make the trip if it weren't for the conflict. Given that it's uncertain AND conflicts with an excellent tournament much closer to home, we chose Centerville.

nicholasmaurer wrote:

Unome wrote: 1) The date change resulted in conflicts that are more severe than in the past.

Major factor for Solon HS - we would still be going if it was on 1/19/19.

Unome wrote: 2) MIT tests are not as valuable to top teams as is generally believed.

I think they are less valuable for state/national tournament preparation than is "generally believed" - that is not to say they lack significant value.

Unome wrote: 3) Watermarking doesn't work, and tests circulate easily anyway.

As an ES I'm not a fan of the watermarking. In practice, I don't think the tests leaked too widely before the official release date (although I had no reason to look since I had my own copy).

Unome wrote: 4) The uncertainty in bringing two teams is a deterrent for schools who are dependent on being able to bring two teams.

Definitely a concern for us and others, but we would certainly attempt to make the trip if it weren't for the conflict. Given that it's uncertain AND conflicts with an excellent tournament much closer to home, we chose Centerville.

That turned out to be a pretty short discussion. I agree that conflicts are probably the biggest concern for most teams, and agree exactly with what you said about test quality. Although, unwatermarked tests seem to be somewhat widely available - I'm told they were circulating on Discord pretty soon after the tournament, and have heard rumors of trading MIT for Golden Gate. I'm not sure whether it's that much of a factor regardless.

Hey everyone! For those of you who are interested in some of the internal workings of MIT Science Olympiad, you should check out our new blog on Medium.

We released our first post on our registration policy earlier today.

Just wondering, is watermarking happening this year?

Because last year I saw that it only generated annoyance towards MIT but didn't stop trading. In fact, it made their test more coveted. It will be interesting to see what they do this year.

WhatScience? wrote:but didn't stop trading

I have wondered about this. Unfortunately I haven't had any basis from which to speculate on the frequency of trading watermark-scrubbed tests last year.

Unome wrote:

WhatScience? wrote:but didn't stop trading

I have wondered about this. Unfortunately I haven't had any basis from which to speculate on the frequency of trading watermark-scrubbed tests last year.

As someone who let's say observed this trading, I can tell you that after the watermarking, people wanted to trade for MIT more and were willing to give much more in return. MIT was highly overrated and was requested and traded at a rate far greater than it would have been otherwise.

A benefit of this is that it allowed for people with say only one or two tests (MIT being one) to gain a lot more easily, but on the downside, after the test circulated (which it did) the trading season ended, making it harder for newer people.

I would say MIT was one of the most traded tests, directly because of watermarking.

WhatScience? wrote:

Unome wrote:

WhatScience? wrote:but didn't stop trading

I have wondered about this. Unfortunately I haven't had any basis from which to speculate on the frequency of trading watermark-scrubbed tests last year.

As someone who let's say observed this trading, I can tell you that after the watermarking, people wanted to trade for MIT more and were willing to give much more in return. MIT was highly overrated and was requested and traded at a rate far greater than it would have been otherwise.

A benefit of this is that it allowed for people with say only one or two tests (MIT being one) to gain a lot more easily, but on the downside, after the test circulated (which it did) the trading season ended, making it harder for newer people.

I would say MIT was one of the most traded tests, directly because of watermarking.

That's approximately what I thought was the case. So it was in fact common for the watermarks to be removed?

Unome wrote:

WhatScience? wrote:

Unome wrote: I have wondered about this. Unfortunately I haven't had any basis from which to speculate on the frequency of trading watermark-scrubbed tests last year.

As someone who let's say observed this trading, I can tell you that after the watermarking, people wanted to trade for MIT more and were willing to give much more in return. MIT was highly overrated and was requested and traded at a rate far greater than it would have been otherwise.

A benefit of this is that it allowed for people with say only one or two tests (MIT being one) to gain a lot more easily, but on the downside, after the test circulated (which it did) the trading season ended, making it harder for newer people.

I would say MIT was one of the most traded tests, directly because of watermarking.

That's approximately what I thought was the case. So it was in fact common for the watermarks to be removed?

No it was not. People traded with watermarks and nobody cared. After all, nobody would report to MIT.