Scioly.org

Feedback on Water Qual Test:
Overall was a very well written test, 9.5/10, also enjoyable to take.
- The salinity testing station used the same solution for all teams. I’m not sure if this solution was changed between time slots because I didn’t see any empty beakers/replacement beakers. It might be a good idea to have several replacements in case of contamination, spilling, etc. It was really nice to include the mixing rod.
- Stations had variability in difficulty. Some stations could be finished promptly with ample time, but other stations had very long questions in comparison. This may be a good thing or a bad thing.
- The stations that required a lot of reading and context for the scenarios/questions were actually very well written, and had us pressed for time. These questions are what I’d like to see more often in water quality tests.
- A good balance between multiple choice and open ended.
- Logistics: It might have been better to tape/secure station questions onto the table, or to clearly label each paper of questions and which station it belonged to. Perhaps printing it on a different color, or putting a color dot on the edge would help. I know there were some teams in our time slot that mixed up station question papers or moved them by accident.

Logistics of the tournament: This is obviously not in the control of event supervisors, but some of the room choices were not ideal. The room selected for GeoMapping and Dynamic Planet did not have ample table space to hold more than one sheet of paper, which makes test taking with a binder or cheatsheets very difficult.

Raven wrote:Logistics of the tournament: This is obviously not in the control of event supervisors, but some of the room choices were not ideal. The room selected for GeoMapping and Dynamic Planet did not have ample table space to hold more than one sheet of paper, which makes test taking with a binder or cheatsheets very difficult.

This is just real preparation for college.

What was Astro, Boomilever, and Fossils like? Personally not so sure about my own opinions.

alisulmoh wrote:What was Astro, Boomilever, and Fossils like? Personally not so sure about my own opinions.

I personally thought Boom wasn’t as well run as I thought it would (I didn’t compete in it bc I was feeling sick during our slot). Mostly because after I emailed them about picking up the bucket they said we aren’t allowed to. but when we went in to watch after our boom slot there were teams who picked the bucket up and poured which is an advantage for some team’s booms (mine too). The sand was really moist and clumpy and the cups broke and cracked so picking sand up was really the most reliable thing to do. Other than that it was ok but 5/10

alisulmoh wrote:What was Astro, Boomilever, and Fossils like? Personally not so sure about my own opinions.

I only did the DSO portion and some theory on the test, and I can attest that it was very well written on that part.

Oh also! I was the proctor for Disease so if anyone has specific event feedback that would be great! If you want to message or email me privately, that is also OK, my email is on the front of the exam. I'm not sure how much detail I'm allowed to give away in terms or scores/distributions, but I may be able to answer questions about them, I just need to check in with exec board. They might allow me to post a score distribution.

I was ALSO the proctor for DUSO Disease, so if you would like access to that test as well, or my SOUP Disease 2018 exam, feel free to message me and I will send you it. I might end up posting it on the test exchange here, because I'm a firm believer in having open-access tests available to all teams, because the point of Olympiad is not solely to win, but also to learn.


(That's also why all of my exams are long and conceptual, to test learning rather than just memorization, and also to be used as a resource to study from later on )

ScienceTurtle314 wrote:You could superstack each state... Solon and Mason, Troy and Mira Loma, WWP North and South...

Unlike the other schools, WW-P North and South are in the same school district.

Unome wrote: A hypothetical WW-P high school would almost certainly lose to Troy. I would expect them to be competitive for top 6 at Nationals though.

Sounds about right. Remember that stacking assumes that conflicts do not happen. Stacking always overestimates performance, and stacking four teams and expecting the absolute best performance is well outside the realm of possibility.

Given North's and South's strong performance in various areas though, I would expect competitiveness at the top 3 at nationals.

Thoughts on events:

Fermi: Much easier test than last year and was quite plain and straightforward. Might not have enough differentiating material for the top teams and I expect there to be little difference in raw scores at the top. Still a pretty solid test. 6.5/10

Codebusters: It should be a rule that competitors must be allowed to write on tests. I understand that some schools are antsy with organizations printing so many tests and the use of such a large amount of paper, but at least for this event and especially the timed question, writing on the test is ESSENTIAL. Thoroughly frustrated that the timed question was even more weighted here since if you were able to ID the quote, you didn't need to rewrite the question on the scrap paper (in my opinion, the timed questions is overweighted) to solve, compounding the issue. Frequency tables were also not given, making it more annoying to solve problem, though less of an issue since there weren't many long quotes. If anyone solved the xenocrypt, then you're amazing - having the same exact letter pattern as "blanca" and getting that the word is "franca" in a poem about cultivating white roses made it terribly difficult to solve the problem. 6/10 (understanding that SOUP does not have full control over printing copies of tests).

Boomilever: I really wish each tournament could invest in buying sand. You'll need it each year for Bridges/Towers/Boomilever and you'll never need to buy it again. Some of the best sand to use would be black sand, AKA black silicon carbide sand. If not readily available, then at least let the sand be dry (you could literally bake the sand). Simply for that reason, my Boomilever did not perform up to expectations since loading by hand and crumpling the sand in was the best option and induced early strain (via staggered loading of mass) that would have been avoidable with better sand. Note: I think measuring the length of the structure with regards to the loading point (between 40-40 cm) should not come out of the 6 minutes of loading. Either time should be stopped or this should be done beforehand with a mark of where the block would be and verifying that the block is actually there during loading. 5/10

Wright Stuff: It was nice that teams were able to test early on before the first session. The height dimensions were slightly misleading... since the effective height was only 20 feet or so (obstructions started there). My planes were trimmed to fly around 30 feet or so and I had to drop when I got there. It was also slightly annoying that timers were not on standby when teams were on the official clock (3+8 minutes) with so many volunteers present (at least during my slot). Having a plane with over 1800 turns on it induces lots of strain on the motor stick so holding it while having to wait is quite nervewracking to say the least. However, the tool used to measure construction parameters was nice and made the process clear and easy. 7/10

Hi all! I was one of the ESs for protein modeling at SOUP. Would love to get feedback from you all. Hope you enjoyed the tournament!

Hey everyone! I was one of the event supervisors for Fossils and this was my first time writing a test, so any feedback and criticism would be super helpful. Hope that you guys liked the tournament!