Protein Modeling C

[FullMetalMaple]

Yikes. Sorry it didn't go as well as you'd hoped, both of you.

It's a shame – I think this is a better event when there's room to push your understanding farther – but at the same time, it's a good reminder that you should never rely too heavily on a particular supervisor's grading/writing style for your strategy in any event.

I agree. When I competed in my school's invitational this year, the supervisor (my coach for this event) only graded pre-builds on the sequence of secondary structures she got off the PDB. It bothered me, because as you said, you should push your understanding further, much further than just if you can fold things in the correct order. I mean, sure, that's part of it. But I think creative additions are the heart of the pre-build.

[Dragonshark]

I spent between twenty and forty hours on my prebuild between Regionals and States, adding multiple creative additions and a huge amount of detail; I read all about PARP, and we came out of the test/onsite feeling that we completely nailed both. We were certain we'd medaled, and thought we had a significant chance of the elusive first place.

So we were rather surprised when we didn't medal, and turned out to have gotten ninth.

Sorry that it didn't go as well for you this year as it did the previous one. Despite the exam and models ostensibly being "centralized" by MSOE, each event supervisor nevertheless has their own interpretation of which things are more important than others. Even if two prebuilds are equal in terms of creative additions, the judges may choose one over the other just because they like how that one is colored more. This is just an assumption, but some supervisors probably don't even count additions made of Toober and CBM magnet sidechains only because they're the "default" materials, even if they represent perfectly valid things.

Anyways, for me, the competition was extremely close. The difference between the sixth and first place teams was only 3.5 points!

[Phenylethylamine]

I spent between twenty and forty hours on my prebuild between Regionals and States, adding multiple creative additions and a huge amount of detail; I read all about PARP, and we came out of the test/onsite feeling that we completely nailed both. We were certain we'd medaled, and thought we had a significant chance of the elusive first place.

So we were rather surprised when we didn't medal, and turned out to have gotten ninth.

Sorry that it didn't go as well for you this year as it did the previous one. Despite the exam and models ostensibly being "centralized" by MSOE, each event supervisor nevertheless has their own interpretation of which things are more important than others. Even if two prebuilds are equal in terms of creative additions, the judges may choose one over the other just because they like how that one is colored more. This is just an assumption, but some supervisors probably don't even count additions made of Toober and CBM magnet sidechains only because they're the "default" materials, even if they represent perfectly valid things.

Anyways, for me, the competition was extremely close. The difference between the sixth and first place teams was only 3.5 points!

We don't get our scores back (just our places), although I'm thinking of emailing the supervisors to ask for recommendations for Nationals, so it's conceivable that I could find out my score that way.

[Flavorflav]

In retrospect, I'm guessing this was my fatal mistake: I didn't realize that it wasn't going to be the same event supervisor as last year.

We did that with Technical - we were really well prepared for the way it has been done for the last decade, but this year's was totally different. Not in a good way, either. Score depends only on proximity to final answer, and there are only three problems? What kind of scoring system is that?

[Phenylethylamine]

In retrospect, I'm guessing this was my fatal mistake: I didn't realize that it wasn't going to be the same event supervisor as last year.

We did that with Technical - we were really well prepared for the way it has been done for the last decade, but this year's was totally different. Not in a good way, either. Score depends only on proximity to final answer, and there are only three problems? What kind of scoring system is that?

Yeah, that was our problem with Technical, too. The questions were much more interesting than Harold Miller's, though... I have kind of mixed feelings about the Technical event.

It's just weird to me that who the event supervisor was could make such a difference in Protein, though – I tend to think of it as being a very consistent event, because all the tests and rubrics and everything come straight from MSOE. Of course, rubrics are highly subject to interpretation, so...

[Dragonshark]

We don't get our scores back (just our places), although I'm thinking of emailing the supervisors to ask for recommendations for Nationals, so it's conceivable that I could find out my score that way.

Our state uses the Avogadro scoring system, meaning that the places and raw scores for everything are online within hours of the competition.

[Phenylethylamine]

We don't get our scores back (just our places), although I'm thinking of emailing the supervisors to ask for recommendations for Nationals, so it's conceivable that I could find out my score that way.

Our state uses the Avogadro scoring system, meaning that the places and raw scores for everything are online within hours of the competition.

What is the Avogadro scoring system?

In New York, places are online usually the day after competition, and we get score sheets with all the places at the end of the award ceremony, but raw scores are never released (unless you know the supervisor, or occasionally some tech supervisors will post the scores for the top few devices on the boards).

[Dragonshark]

We don't get our scores back (just our places), although I'm thinking of emailing the supervisors to ask for recommendations for Nationals, so it's conceivable that I could find out my score that way.

Our state uses the Avogadro scoring system, meaning that the places and raw scores for everything are online within hours of the competition.

What is the Avogadro scoring system?

In New York, places are online usually the day after competition, and we get score sheets with all the places at the end of the award ceremony, but raw scores are never released (unless you know the supervisor, or occasionally some tech supervisors will post the scores for the top few devices on the boards).

It's a quick and easy way to keep track of SO scores. It was developed in my state (Wisconsin) and is now used in a few others. Here's the results from my States competition, for example.

[quizbowl]

We don't get our scores back (just our places), although I'm thinking of emailing the supervisors to ask for recommendations for Nationals, so it's conceivable that I could find out my score that way.

Our state uses the Avogadro scoring system, meaning that the places and raw scores for everything are online within hours of the competition.

What is the Avogadro scoring system?

In New York, places are online usually the day after competition, and we get score sheets with all the places at the end of the award ceremony, but raw scores are never released (unless you know the supervisor, or occasionally some tech supervisors will post the scores for the top few devices on the boards).

If you were wondering, Phenylethylamine, WLI C used Avogadro scoring this year - it was really efficient and awesome!

[starpug]

I spent between twenty and forty hours on my prebuild between Regionals and States, adding multiple creative additions and a huge amount of detail; I read all about PARP, and we came out of the test/onsite feeling that we completely nailed both. We were certain we'd medaled, and thought we had a significant chance of the elusive first place.

So we were rather surprised when we didn't medal, and turned out to have gotten ninth.

In retrospect, I'm guessing this was my fatal mistake: I didn't realize that it wasn't going to be the same event supervisor as last year. Last year's supervisor (who some of you may remember as kwijiborjt) wanted detail, detail, detail – chemically accurate, high-level creative additions. So that's how I built my model, with heteroatoms of relevant residues shown in CPK colors, and different colored thread corresponding to different types of bonds between residues, and so on. I tried to make my creative additions creative, with some more complex stuff in addition to the obvious additions, trying to show a deeper understanding of the protein's function. And I think some of it may have gone over the heads of the judges, who were probably judging the event for the first time and adhering exactly to the grading guidelines issued by MSOE. My more advanced creative additions wouldn't have been on the list of likely/suggested creative additions (which event supervisors are encouraged to look beyond at their own discretion), and may not have received any points. Similarly, my explanations for why the highlighted residues in the onsite were important (which came straight from the primary citation for 3OD8.pdb) may have been too technical and might not have gotten as many points as a more general explanation.

It's a shame – I think this is a better event when there's room to push your understanding farther – but at the same time, it's a good reminder that you should never rely too heavily on a particular supervisor's grading/writing style for your strategy in any event.

I can send you my state 3rd if you want. I don't think we could have gotten 3rd without your posts and contributions to the wiki. I can't wait to compete against you at nationals.