Scioly.org

kentuckyfan1001 wrote:

Steelfoam wrote:I guess this could be a serious problem in states with multiples regionals that do matter. In wisconsin, I dont think any of the tests were modified. The state supervisor was a hard grader though.

Isn't the state supervisor the national event supervisor in Wisconsin?

It would make sense, given that the event is run by the Milwaukee School of Engineering.

I have a question. Would you say the rules limit all of your explanations and everything to the 3" x 5" card?

I saw a few at State that had other diagrams on stuff on the bottom of their box. It obviously doesn't matter anymore, but we had been operating on the assumption that you had to squeeze everything you wanted to say onto that one card, front and back. Has everyone else been thinking that?

Phenylethylamine wrote:

kentuckyfan1001 wrote:

Steelfoam wrote:I guess this could be a serious problem in states with multiples regionals that do matter. In wisconsin, I dont think any of the tests were modified. The state supervisor was a hard grader though.

Isn't the state supervisor the national event supervisor in Wisconsin?

It would make sense, given that the event is run by the Milwaukee School of Engineering.

It didn't look like it was the national supervisor for some reason. (the state supervisor was a bit too old... and also had a pair of "this event is over" sunglasses :p)

Press_Tilty wrote:I have a question. Would you say the rules limit all of your explanations and everything to the 3" x 5" card?

I saw a few at State that had other diagrams on stuff on the bottom of their box. It obviously doesn't matter anymore, but we had been operating on the assumption that you had to squeeze everything you wanted to say onto that one card, front and back. Has everyone else been thinking that?

In general, make sure your explanations are as concise as possible, meaning that they all fit onto the card. Some supervisors will accept explanations beyond the notecard, but others probably won't (according to the national supervisor - I had the chance to ask her some questions).

Press_Tilty wrote:I have a question. Would you say the rules limit all of your explanations and everything to the 3" x 5" card?

I saw a few at State that had other diagrams on stuff on the bottom of their box. It obviously doesn't matter anymore, but we had been operating on the assumption that you had to squeeze everything you wanted to say onto that one card, front and back. Has everyone else been thinking that?

I would assume that the diagrams fall under the category of "creative additions." At nationals last year there were quite a few among the top teams that had accompanying posters, if I remember correctly.

See, if I were a judge, I would interpret "creative additions" as representations of some molecular structure added to the protein itself.

Press_Tilty wrote:See, if I were a judge, I would interpret "creative additions" as representations of some molecular structure added to the protein itself.

That's what I also think. The 3-fold displays, posters, diagrams, walls of text, etc are probably mainly used to appeal to the subjective nature of the scoring process by making everything look nice, while all of the explanations are still on the notecard.

Phenylethylamine wrote:

kentuckyfan1001 wrote:

Steelfoam wrote:I guess this could be a serious problem in states with multiples regionals that do matter. In wisconsin, I dont think any of the tests were modified. The state supervisor was a hard grader though.

Isn't the state supervisor the national event supervisor in Wisconsin?

It would make sense, given that the event is run by the Milwaukee School of Engineering.

No, the person who was at the Wisconsin State tournament was not the national event supervisor. I don't think you get any extra points for posters, however it might help explain your model more?

Sorry for posting twice in a row but, does anyone know what part or parts of MHC we are supposed to model for the national onsite?

Steelfoam wrote:Sorry for posting twice in a row but, does anyone know what part or parts of MHC we are supposed to model for the national onsite?

The file is 1hsa.pdb; of course, they won't let us know what section we're modeling until the actual competition.

As for the discussion on creative additions, the goal of the case was to show the bigger picture of the protein. Depending on the judge, they may or may not give you points for it. But hey, if it doesn't hurt then why not? Posters are a little more iffy...

1. At Nationals, is it likely there will dock points based on whether your helices are 3_10?

2. Do they count Cys285 and His237 as TWO different creative additions if I explained the role of each residue separately on my note card? (I'm lazy-- trying to get as many free points as possible haha )

3. Would coloring the H-bonds responsible for the dimerization of Chain A and B count as "creative additions" if I explained why those are important?

4. Will it count as a creative addition if I attach something to the active site and just say on my note card that it's the Asp-x-x-Asp recognition site. Or does it have to be more detailed (like part of a real protein that gets cleaved by caspase-3) to receive credit

As you see, my team will probably not place that high at nationals -- so help would be appreciated answering my lazy-bum questions.