Scioly.org

theres been a significant lack of bio event talk. any comments on disease or microbe? any medaling raw scores??

Does anyone know who the proctor for code busters was? He was an Indian guy wearing a red jacket.

Can anyone report what the lower range of mousetrap car scores were? Like, in the 30s?

Forensics(9) I felt like this was a really good test, as it was both really long and challenging. However, saying that, me and my partner were both surprised at how well we placed. This was basically our second time meeting for this event, and we hadn't taken any practice tests before. I just felt we got really lucky, since we guessed the same suspect every time the test asked for a suspect. Overall a really good test though.
Chem lab(9) This was a really good test also. The content was really difficult and it was really long which was good for us.
Material Science(15) This was still a pretty good test. However, I felt like it focused a lot on ochem and nothing we put on our cheatsheet, so we ended up guessing for over half the test. The lab was interesting but kind of difficult to perform, since the creeprate substance didn't really move. Overall it was still a pretty good test overall.
Game on(17) I got carried by my partner

Mission Possible (8): This was very well-run. The proctors were knowledgeable and ran down the rules accordingly. However, one small issue that I saw was that the 10cm and 20cm of the transfers weren’t measured at all. That should be done to be sure teams are following the rules.
Game On (8): We’ve all heard the stories. Our experience was pretty crazy. We went in a total of 4 times because the game was never saved correctly or kept crashing, interfering with our other events. The way games were being saved kept being changed throughout the day as well. By the end, they had it figured out, but it should’ve been practiced prior because it wasn’t consistent for all teams. Additionally, the proctors set the game type as two-player racing which is the national level. It states in the rules that at invitationals, you must only assign collection, avoidance, and maze. I overheard them discussing this rule mix up, but it should’ve been more explicitly stated that they would adhere to national rules and not invitational rules for Game On to coaches. They even changed the rules on their website from invitational to national after the tournament, as other people have noticed. http://scioly.mit.edu/rules/
Optics (26): This was pretty well run and the test was solid. The box was well built. Neat job.
Thermodynamics (55): I don’t even know. Some boxes were placed right under drafts while others weren’t so that made inconsistencies. The proctor would put the thermometer in, but not make contact with the water (from what I’ve heard from many) and the teams were called in random orders. There is supposed to be a set time for all teams. There were also teams caught with their phones out but nothing was done about it. The control beaker for some teams had been modified by placing different materials under it which isn’t allowed. There should’ve been better monitoring.
Code Busters (33): Pretty fun! It was a well-run trial event and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

All in all, this has been the most well-run tournament I’ve been to and congratulate MIT on it, but there are definitely some cracks. I hope to see these improved in the future and look forward to next year!

Kimmy wrote:theres been a significant lack of bio event talk. any comments on disease or microbe? any medaling raw scores??

The disease test was pretty vanilla. I liked the shots at SnD, but also I'm pretty sure info needed to complete all the calculations in the stats sections was missing. Better than the average test, but not as great as the massive MMWR case study packets the Ohio state people drop on us.

Alex-RCHS wrote:Can anyone report what the lower range of mousetrap car scores were? Like, in the 30s?

I think someone already said their 3rd place score was in the mid teens on the mousetrap forum. I think a score in the 30s would probably have placed ~15th.

Microbes (9): Just got the answer key today, but 4 of the MC questions had wrong answers (our answer was correct, answer key was wrong). Point differences between the top 10 teams were very small. Good test overall, though none of it was particularly difficult.
Ecology (2): Lost the tiebreaker with Mason (sad). Same proctor and format as last year, but easier questions (our raw score was 8% higher than last year). Great for differentiating between top teams.
Dynamic Planet (1): Good, comprehensive test but left most of it blank.
Experimental Design (4): MIT could and should have been more creative/elaborate with this (I mean, they had lasers last year!). We had nearly the same experiment at a lower tier invitational. Also, complaints with grading; we lost points for sections that had obviously been done (i.e. no points at all were given).
...
MIT Campus: 0/10. Reminded again of how depressing the brutalist architecture is. UChicago > Caltech > Ivies >>> MIT.

allopathie wrote:Microbes (9): Just got the answer key today, but 4 of the MC questions had wrong answers (our answer was correct, answer key was wrong). Obviously can't share, but point differences between the top 10 teams were very small. Good test overall, though none of it was particularly difficult.
Ecology (2): Lost the tiebreaker with Mason (sad). Same proctor and format as last year, but easier questions (our raw score was 8% higher than last year). Great for differentiating between top teams.
Dynamic Planet (1): Good, comprehensive test but left most of it blank.
Experimental Design (4): MIT could and should have been more creative/elaborate with this (I mean, they had lasers last year!). We had nearly the same experiment at a lower tier invitational. Also, complaints with grading; we lost points for sections that had obviously been done (i.e. no points at all were given).
...
MIT Campus: 0/10. Reminded again of how depressing the brutalist architecture is. UChicago > Caltech > Ivies >>> MIT.

When I visited Harvey Mudd they talked a lot about being rated the ugliest college campus in America, maybe you should visit them!

(Also, how is MIT's campus ugly? It has a big fat river.)

MIT's campus definitely puts more emphasis on practicality than looking pretty. I for one really enjoy the concept of most of the buildings being connected without having to go outside.

Also, if you dislike MIT's campus that much, do not visit Drexel. It's convenient from a practical perspective but pretty is not a way to describe it.

I've decided to make another unlabeled plot of the hovercraft scores. The exam score and "device" score (all components other than ES) were separated and independently sorted. This means, for example, that the highest device score doesn't necessarily correspond to the highest exam or overall score. The exam had a nice, reasonably linear distribution that looks good. The devices were another story- it's clear that a minority of teams had functional devices that got any significant scores.