Re: 2020 Princeton Invitational
Posted: February 8th, 2020, 7:30 pm
Is there a complete score spreadsheet?
it would be on avogadro but as of now it's not released yet
Scioly.org
Science Olympiad Student Center
https://scioly.org:443/forums/
2020 Princeton Invitational
Page 6 of 10
Re: 2020 Princeton Invitational
Posted: February 8th, 2020, 7:33 pm
Re: 2020 Princeton Invitational
Posted: February 8th, 2020, 8:09 pm
Should be up soon™CookiePie1 wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:33 pmit would be on avogadro but as of now it's not released yet
Re: 2020 Princeton Invitational
Posted: February 8th, 2020, 9:20 pm
Don't usually do event reviews but kinda bored so here we go:
Ping Pong Parachute (5): I think PPP was run pretty well, the launcher wasn't leaky and teams were given time to get their two launches in. This was good because it takes some pressure off when we actually went to launch, but at times it did feel like the event was moving slow. I don't think this ever got to a point where time was an issue though. One notable thing was the updrafts in the room. Apparently, some parachutes would float towards a specific vent which would practically stop the parachute from moving or even push it back up, significantly adding to teams' times, which can be a bit frustrating if your parachute doesn't float to the vent. Obviously, nothing the ES could do about that, so overall run well. (9/10)
Machines (3): Wow, this one was interesting. In my opinion, some of the problems on this test (i.e. the problem concerning a pulley system with 5 masses) were even more difficult than MIT's test a few weeks ago. Additionally, the test was very short, with only 6 MC and 9 FRQs. To me, this made the test a bit frustrating as well, but overall still a well-run event, no issues with the build portion. (8/10)
Codebusters (1): My team was able to get the timed question relatively quickly and got 16/19 of the other questions. There wasn't much noteworthy about the test, but I think it was a good length and had a solid mix of easier and more difficult questions. (10/10)
Circuit Lab (1): The ES of this event was just terrible
just kidding windu34, overall I think this test was pretty similar to the Solon Invitational test from last week in difficulty, having a good mixture of circuit analysis, conceptual, and general knowledge questions. The lab portion went well for us, and was very much focused in problem solving in Lab 1 and general understanding of circuit schematics and logic in Lab 2. The lab wasn't quite as hands on as many labs are, which did play to our strengths, but I thoroughly enjoyed it, which isn't usually the case for me (I'm generally panicking when doing the lab). When I had the chance to briefly talk to the ES after awards, I was a bit to suprised to learn what the margins looked like (there will probably be a post tomorrow from windu34 as he has previously done). Overall, a great test from windu34 and AsherNoel as always. (11/10)
Ping Pong Parachute (5): I think PPP was run pretty well, the launcher wasn't leaky and teams were given time to get their two launches in. This was good because it takes some pressure off when we actually went to launch, but at times it did feel like the event was moving slow. I don't think this ever got to a point where time was an issue though. One notable thing was the updrafts in the room. Apparently, some parachutes would float towards a specific vent which would practically stop the parachute from moving or even push it back up, significantly adding to teams' times, which can be a bit frustrating if your parachute doesn't float to the vent. Obviously, nothing the ES could do about that, so overall run well. (9/10)
Machines (3): Wow, this one was interesting. In my opinion, some of the problems on this test (i.e. the problem concerning a pulley system with 5 masses) were even more difficult than MIT's test a few weeks ago. Additionally, the test was very short, with only 6 MC and 9 FRQs. To me, this made the test a bit frustrating as well, but overall still a well-run event, no issues with the build portion. (8/10)
Codebusters (1): My team was able to get the timed question relatively quickly and got 16/19 of the other questions. There wasn't much noteworthy about the test, but I think it was a good length and had a solid mix of easier and more difficult questions. (10/10)
Circuit Lab (1): The ES of this event was just terrible
just kidding windu34, overall I think this test was pretty similar to the Solon Invitational test from last week in difficulty, having a good mixture of circuit analysis, conceptual, and general knowledge questions. The lab portion went well for us, and was very much focused in problem solving in Lab 1 and general understanding of circuit schematics and logic in Lab 2. The lab wasn't quite as hands on as many labs are, which did play to our strengths, but I thoroughly enjoyed it, which isn't usually the case for me (I'm generally panicking when doing the lab). When I had the chance to briefly talk to the ES after awards, I was a bit to suprised to learn what the margins looked like (there will probably be a post tomorrow from windu34 as he has previously done). Overall, a great test from windu34 and AsherNoel as always. (11/10)Re: 2020 Princeton Invitational
Posted: February 9th, 2020, 5:20 am
What did you get for the time bonus? We got 6:04 and 15/19.jaggie34 wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 9:20 pm Don't usually do event reviews but kinda bored so here we go:
Ping Pong Parachute (5): I think PPP was run pretty well, the launcher wasn't leaky and teams were given time to get their two launches in. This was good because it takes some pressure off when we actually went to launch, but at times it did feel like the event was moving slow. I don't think this ever got to a point where time was an issue though. One notable thing was the updrafts in the room. Apparently, some parachutes would float towards a specific vent which would practically stop the parachute from moving or even push it back up, significantly adding to teams' times, which can be a bit frustrating if your parachute doesn't float to the vent. Obviously, nothing the ES could do about that, so overall run well. (9/10)
Machines (3): Wow, this one was interesting. In my opinion, some of the problems on this test (i.e. the problem concerning a pulley system with 5 masses) were even more difficult than MIT's test a few weeks ago. Additionally, the test was very short, with only 6 MC and 9 FRQs. To me, this made the test a bit frustrating as well, but overall still a well-run event, no issues with the build portion. (8/10)
Codebusters (1): My team was able to get the timed question relatively quickly and got 16/19 of the other questions. There wasn't much noteworthy about the test, but I think it was a good length and had a solid mix of easier and more difficult questions. (10/10)
Circuit Lab (1): The ES of this event was just terrible
Re: 2020 Princeton Invitational
Posted: February 9th, 2020, 6:05 am
Detector Building (8): Obviously have to give this event high marks lol. In all actuality, the event was hosted very well (easy, clearly visible LED colors and countdowns until the calibration/testing period was over). I also thought the test was made very well, as it kinda stayed away from more of the circuit sides of things and kept towards what made detector unique, as bernard said himself after the competition, talking to him about it. 10/10
Ornithology (2): I thought for a normal lecture room, the stations were placed in great places. Thankfully they were placed far enough apart and we were given a comfortable amount of time to transfer between stations that transferring stations was not a horrible experience. As for the test... holy nonspecific. Wayyy more than I've really ever seen on a test, which was for sure a surprise. Also, the test using scientific names instead of common names for most ID questions was a little odd. Formatting was not bad at all. 8/10
Data Science (22): Lol... I. got put into this event on Friday evening so my partner and I obv didn't study much before, but the event was basically what it said it would be in the rules. The ES's were nice and understood nothing really mattered in terms of final score. Setup wasn't too bad at first, but then another person realized that whenever we put our exams/answer sheets at the front of the room , there'd be no way for the proctors to understand which computer (where we did the Coding Challenges) belonged to which team... Overall fun event. Pretty sure we got a 0 on the Coding Challenges but it was fun to just have fun with my partner with nothing to lose. 9/10
Overall: Pretty cool tournament! Campus was nice and fun to explore, and the tournament setup was done very well imo. The Jadwin building was a little hard to access, but I get that there's always building restraints at tourneys. Also, nice to see some of the Scioly.org mod fam for the first time!
Ornithology (2): I thought for a normal lecture room, the stations were placed in great places. Thankfully they were placed far enough apart and we were given a comfortable amount of time to transfer between stations that transferring stations was not a horrible experience. As for the test... holy nonspecific. Wayyy more than I've really ever seen on a test, which was for sure a surprise. Also, the test using scientific names instead of common names for most ID questions was a little odd. Formatting was not bad at all. 8/10
Data Science (22): Lol... I. got put into this event on Friday evening so my partner and I obv didn't study much before, but the event was basically what it said it would be in the rules. The ES's were nice and understood nothing really mattered in terms of final score. Setup wasn't too bad at first, but then another person realized that whenever we put our exams/answer sheets at the front of the room , there'd be no way for the proctors to understand which computer (where we did the Coding Challenges) belonged to which team... Overall fun event. Pretty sure we got a 0 on the Coding Challenges but it was fun to just have fun with my partner with nothing to lose. 9/10
Overall: Pretty cool tournament! Campus was nice and fun to explore, and the tournament setup was done very well imo. The Jadwin building was a little hard to access, but I get that there's always building restraints at tourneys. Also, nice to see some of the Scioly.org mod fam for the first time!
Re: 2020 Princeton Invitational
Posted: February 9th, 2020, 6:40 am
I believe our time was just below 3 minutes, but I don't know the exact time.builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 9th, 2020, 5:20 amWhat did you get for the time bonus? We got 6:04 and 15/19.jaggie34 wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 9:20 pm Don't usually do event reviews but kinda bored so here we go:
Codebusters (1): My team was able to get the timed question relatively quickly and got 16/19 of the other questions. There wasn't much noteworthy about the test, but I think it was a good length and had a solid mix of easier and more difficult questions. (10/10)
Re: 2020 Princeton Invitational
Posted: February 9th, 2020, 7:21 am
Jeeeez that's good.jaggie34 wrote: ↑February 9th, 2020, 6:40 amI believe our time was just below 3 minutes, but I don't know the exact time.builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 9th, 2020, 5:20 amWhat did you get for the time bonus? We got 6:04 and 15/19.jaggie34 wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 9:20 pm Don't usually do event reviews but kinda bored so here we go:
Codebusters (1): My team was able to get the timed question relatively quickly and got 16/19 of the other questions. There wasn't much noteworthy about the test, but I think it was a good length and had a solid mix of easier and more difficult questions. (10/10)
Re: 2020 Princeton Invitational
Posted: February 9th, 2020, 8:23 am
was the timed particularly long/difficult?builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 9th, 2020, 7:21 amJeeeez that's good.jaggie34 wrote: ↑February 9th, 2020, 6:40 amI believe our time was just below 3 minutes, but I don't know the exact time.builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 9th, 2020, 5:20 am
What did you get for the time bonus? We got 6:04 and 15/19.
Re: 2020 Princeton Invitational
Posted: February 9th, 2020, 8:33 am
Wow, sounds like your coach needs to do a better job prepping the team for trial events.pepperonipi wrote: ↑February 9th, 2020, 6:05 am Data Science (?, not placing): Lol... I. got put into this event on Friday evening so my partner and I obv didn't study much before,