Scioly.org

Mira Loma is hosting its 8th Annual Mira Loma Science Olympiad Invitational using the Mini SO/Scilympiad Model and Grading System on January 9th, 2021! We are looking for a wide variety of teams to join us to compete with some of the top schools in the state (and maybe even in the nation). Please check out our website listed below for some important changes for this year.

C Division ONLY

Email: miralomainvitational@gmail.com
Website: http://miralomainvitational.weebly.com

Registration Date: September 19th, 2020 @ 12 PM PST. Please fill out the Google Forms link for Registration that will be posted on the Weebly website at that time, as well as register on our Scilympiad website: https://scilympiad.com/mlso. Once you register your team through Scilympiad, your team will automatically be put on the waitlist. Whichever teams are selected from Google Forms will be notified via email and taken off the waitlist on our Scilympiad website.

We are tentatively open to 30 teams; however, this number will likely increase as we see how other tournaments handle the online Scilympiad system. Once you are registered, the teams on the waitlist will be visible to everyone on our Weebly website.

WE ARE LOOKING FOR EVENT SUPERVISORS/VOLUNTEERS! This year, instead of having coaches proctor certain events, we are extending this job to our Science Olympiad Alumni as well as other experienced people who are willing to spend time and effort to help the invitational run smoothly. We are also looking for volunteer graders to help our Event Supervisors which can include current students who are not competing at MLSO Invitational. Please check out our Weebly website under the “How to Volunteer” tab to see what specific volunteers we are looking for.

Hope to see you soon! (Virtually, of course)

Awards sheet for January 16th, 2021:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1262438699

What are the rules on partner communication? Are calls allowed for any of the events?

shadow19 wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 5:08 pm What are the rules on partner communication? Are calls allowed for any of the events?

They have just decided that calls will be allowed and they will let coaches know in an email soon.

Great Neck South High School - C22 (NY) 220
William G. Enloe High School - C62 (NC) 208
Iolani High School Okie Dokie Artichokie - C26 (HI) 207
Troy High School Troy's R Us - C59 (CA) 201
Mason High School Ramsey - C31 (OH) 106
Mountain View High School Black - C41 (CA) 99

https://scilympiad.com/mlso/Info/Result ... 71ed0c250b

Event Supervisor Review

Hi everyone! I am the Astronomy co-event supervisor with Pranit Mohnot (PM2017) and the Machines event supervisor. I wanted to go through all of the statistic graphs (that we all love) and list out some of my thoughts for the event. But first, I want to congratulate all of the teams who took my test! Not often do event supervisors get the opportunity to have 68 competitive teams take their test and I was fortunate enough to be a part of the lucky few (so much data!).

Astronomy

Statistics:
Mean: 58.0 (38.7%)
Median: 58.5 (39.0%)
St. Dev.: 26.6
Max: 126 (84.0%)

Graphs: More in-depth statistics and graphs pertaining to sections and specific questions can be found at this link.

Thoughts:
Overall, the scores were as expected and the distribution was pretty good. The Score vs. Rank line graph is pretty linear, minus the top ~5 teams who pulled significantly ahead. The bulk of this test (Sections B and C) were written by Pranit, and Section A was written by yours truly.

• Section A (General Knowledge) was an easier section with straight-forward general concepts and vocabulary being tested. For this test, I decided to mimic the fill-in-the-blank questions used in UT, since I felt those questions gave all of the teams a good running start into the test. I was surprised that many teams missed question A9, with "field stars" being the correct answer for the stars in the galactic halo. The multiple choice questions were of a medium difficulty and teams scored well on those. Unfortunately, I made a mistake while coming up with the answers for question A26, so that question had to be removed from scoring (but it has been fixed in the test release given to attending teams). The final part of the multiple choice section (the last 7 questions) were cosmology based and resulted in an expected drop in scoring. One team was able to get all 7 right! Cosmology is a tough but interesting topic, so I hope teams are up for the challenge. The distribution of this section was as expected, with teams clumping up near the top.
• Section B (Deep-Sky Objects) had a good linear distribution across the scores and differentiated teams well. The average score for each question was around the same, but, as expected, a bit lower for question B5 due to the calculation question built into it. The selection of A in B5a was omitted, since we felt the specificity of the question was unreasonable (technically 3C 273 is not the closest known quasar).
• Section C (Calculations) was where many stronger teams made themselves known with almost full scores. One team was able to get 58/60 on this section! Often, calculation sections have a monotonically decreasing/triangle histogram, but Pranit and I were pleased that many teams were able to get a fair amount of points in this section. Unfortunately, the last question in this section did have an error, which resulted in some weird Hubble's constants; however, there was no issue with the problem statement itself and it was not removed from scoring. For teams receiving the test, Pranit has written up an in depth solution manual/walkthrough for the calculation questions. We hope you find it useful!

Finally, I want to thank my co-ES, Pranit, for making this amazing test and also to our volunteer grader, Kayton Truong.

Machines

Statistics:
Mean: 45.9 (30.6%)
Median: 42 (28.0%)
St. Dev.: 21.1
Max: 107.5 (71.7%)

Graphs: More in-depth statistics and graphs pertaining to sections and specific questions can be found at this link.

Thoughts:
Overall, the test had an okay distribution of scores; however, many teams were bunched up at the 30-50 point mark. Definitely more easy-medium difficulty problems were needed to better separate teams. Regardless, I felt that teams did great and can use this test as a good education tool to learn new problem-solving techniques. Compared to the Astronomy line graph, the top ~3 teams pulled much much further ahead from the trendline. These teams definitely demonstrated mastery of machines and mechanics!

• Section A (Multiple Chioce) was written to be an easier portion of the test, to ease in the test takers (as I normally try to do), but I did slip in a few tricky problems (some geometry in A7 and A8, some pressure calculation in A18, and a combinatorics question in A30). This resulted in a standard distribution, with a strong peak at ~30 points. There was a surprising low correct rate for A28, which asked about the direction of the rotation vectors of rotating gears (right hand rule!). I think this section could be made a tad easier for future tests.
• Section B (Free Response) had a much steeper distribution, with many teams scoring less than 5 points. The first and second questions should have been switched, since calculating values symbolically is definitely more daunting than working with numeric values. However, teams did well on both of these questions, with one team even getting a full score (30/30!) on question B2. Question B3 was the device design problem where teams had to come up with their own device to determine unknown mass ratios. Around half of the teams made an external submission, which was on par with the rate from SOLVI. I decided to make the question more focused, with teams needing to consider specific sources of error and evaluating a scenario presented to them. Teams who submitted generally did well on their design; however, I saw many teams submit designs that were impossible (i.e. requiring a compressive force to act through a string). Make sure your design is practical and possible! I hope teams had fun with this question.

Finally, I want to thank my volunteer grader, Jasleen Sidhu, who helped me out a bunch with grading. Without her, I may have forgotten to grade a few questions.

Test Feedback

If you have feedback for either test, feel free to leave it here! I would appreciate it a ton, since feedback helps a lot with gauging what I need to adjust in my tests. The test codes are as follows:

• Astronomy: 2021MLSO-AstronomyC-Spiral
• Machines: 2021MLSO-MachinesC-Chain

Superscored:

School Sum Rank
Mountain View HS 98 1
Mason High School 106 2
Troy High School (CA) 118 3
Mission San Jose High School 204 4
Iolani School 207 5
William G. Enloe High School 208 6
Great Neck South High School 220 7
Ed W. Clark High School 225 8
Palo Alto 233 9

Superscored, NY style:
Mountain View HS 73 1
Mason High School 79 2
Troy High School (CA) 87 3
Great Neck South High School 125 4
Mission San Jose High School 146 5
William G. Enloe High School 164 6
Ed W. Clark High School 184 7
Iolani School 185 8
Palo Alto 211 9