MIT Invitational 2018
-
- Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: January 24th, 2018, 12:46 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- lumosityfan
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 418
- Joined: July 14th, 2012, 7:00 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: TX
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 192 times
- Been thanked: 84 times
Re: MIT Invitational 2018
They're not going to be published online so no one's going to tell you here even if they do. I suggest you PM someone.ClarkSluelway wrote:Does anyone have the password yet for the tests?
John P. Stevens Class of 2015 (Go Hawks!)
Columbia University Class of 2019 (Go Lions!)
Columbia University Class of 2019 (Go Lions!)
- pikachu4919
- Moderator
- Posts: 716
- Joined: December 7th, 2012, 2:30 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: IN
- Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
- Has thanked: 89 times
- Been thanked: 167 times
Re: MIT Invitational 2018
The portal to the tests is up on the website. I imagine you should have a password by now? Even though I was one of the event supervisors, I'm in no way involved in the distribution of the tests back to the teams that attended and do not have a password.ClarkSluelway wrote:Does anyone have the password yet for the tests?
(Also, does anyone else have spicy event ratings for any of us supervisors? We'd love to hear them! There haven't been too many so far..... )
Carmel HS (IN) '16
Purdue BioE '21? reevaluating my life choices
Nationals 2016 ~ 4th place Forensics
"It is important to draw wisdom from different places. If you take it from only one place, it becomes rigid and stale." -Uncle Iroh
About me || Rate my tests!
Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.
MY CABBAGES!
Purdue BioE '21? reevaluating my life choices
Nationals 2016 ~ 4th place Forensics
"It is important to draw wisdom from different places. If you take it from only one place, it becomes rigid and stale." -Uncle Iroh
About me || Rate my tests!
Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.
MY CABBAGES!
-
- Member
- Posts: 14
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 6:21 pm
- Division: C
- State: OH
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: MIT Invitational 2018
The chemlab test was super long and super interesting, also liked the avatar theme 10/10pikachu4919 wrote:The portal to the tests is up on the website. I imagine you should have a password by now? Even though I was one of the event supervisors, I'm in no way involved in the distribution of the tests back to the teams that attended and do not have a password.ClarkSluelway wrote:Does anyone have the password yet for the tests?
(Also, does anyone else have spicy event ratings for any of us supervisors? We'd love to hear them! There haven't been too many so far..... )
The thermo test, especially the last few frq's, felt nearly impossible but was also super great 9/10
- Riptide
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 202
- Joined: December 4th, 2017, 7:09 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: TX
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 8 times
- Contact:
Re: MIT Invitational 2018
I just want to note that this is practically my first year in scioly and my first time ever competing at this caliber of level, so I don't really have anything to compare this to, but here are my event ratings:pikachu4919 wrote:
(Also, does anyone else have spicy event ratings for any of us supervisors? We'd love to hear them! There haven't been too many so far..... )
Fermi Questions (14) : The test was really good and had a nice mixture of easy and hard questions. In my opinion it improved a ton from last years test (both were written by jkang I believe). Only suggestion I have is maybe adding a few more questions to add more of a rush to the test and help differentiate teams better (3rd - 10th place had a difference of only 14 points). Loved the last question
Game On (52): By now I'm sure everyone heard about how the event was run, so I won't spend much time talking about it. I think the proctors and graders did the best they could in their situation, but I wish MIT had put more time into preparing for this event. Most (if not all) the graders had no experience with the event and so the grading was pretty random. On top of that, the computers were extremely slow and ended up being frozen for minutes at a time. While I am upset with how it all went down, I'm sure the event will be better prepared next year (assuming Game On remains an event).
Helicopters (14): Nothing much to say here. The room was very open and the ceilings were pretty good. Everything seemed fine to me and I'm pretty blown away by the top scores (around 3:00 raw time with a chinook )
Hovercraft (9): The test was pretty challenging for me, but it was lots of fun to take. The length was around what we expected, and my partner and I barely didn't finish (we were almost done with the last question). Definitely required most of the teams to have the 2 partners to split it up and take it separately in order to finish, and the test itself had a good variety of questions. While I personally didn't do the vehicle testing, everything seemed to go ok there. The impound process was pretty slow, and it almost came to the point where I was going to have to impound the A team's hovercraft since both of them had events first slot. Luckily it didn't come to that, but it would be nice to have a few more stations for impound. If getting volunteers is a problem, simply starting the impound process earlier could easily fix the problem.
All in all, MIT was a great experience and I can't wait to come back next year!
UC Berkeley
Seven Lakes High School '19
Seven Lakes High School '19
-
- Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: June 25th, 2017, 7:16 am
- Division: C
- State: DC
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: MIT Invitational 2018
Speaking of hovercraft, does anybody know the test scores were? Last year those who medaled in hovercraft had a test score somewhere in the 30s while Troy probably had a score in the 40s or 50s (hard to tell from the graph that the ES posted a while back).Riptide wrote:Hovercraft (9): The test was pretty challenging for me, but it was lots of fun to take. The length was around what we expected, and my partner and I barely didn't finish (we were almost done with the last question). Definitely required most of the teams to have the 2 partners to split it up and take it separately in order to finish, and the test itself had a good variety of questions. While I personally didn't do the vehicle testing, everything seemed to go ok there. The impound process was pretty slow, and it almost came to the point where I was going to have to impound the A team's hovercraft since both of them had events first slot. Luckily it didn't come to that, but it would be nice to have a few more stations for impound. If getting volunteers is a problem, simply starting the impound process earlier could easily fix the problem.
Washington D.C.
2018 Events
Hovercraft, Optics, Thermodynamics, Dynamic Planet, Mousetrap Vehicle
2018 Events
Hovercraft, Optics, Thermodynamics, Dynamic Planet, Mousetrap Vehicle
-
- Member
- Posts: 107
- Joined: October 17th, 2014, 8:49 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: TX
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: MIT Invitational 2018
The biggest problem with these are 1) getting the tracks themselves - a group of us had to actually pick up the tracks from a team the day before the competition due to the difficulty in actually transporting and obtaining the tracks. Also the problem with impound isn't necessarily the length. The biggest problem is that many teams try to impound their devices as late as possible, and this results in large spaces of nothing near the beginning of impound and heavy traffic of teams near the end. This is something that will basically never be fixed by increasing the impound duration, just mostly manpower.Riptide wrote:Luckily it didn't come to that, but it would be nice to have a few more stations for impound. If getting volunteers is a problem, simply starting the impound process earlier could easily fix the problem.
I've also seen a few complaints about volunteers here so I'd like to put in my two cents on it. Getting volunteers is hard. You guys could be judgmental now with how much you are involved in SciO, but college students are very lazy and for a lot of us SciO just doesn't matter anymore. Taking a whole day out of our schedules to help out a tournament is a huge commitment, especially when a lot of us are busy with work, friends, or other generally more interesting things. The fact that MIT is able to recruit so many volunteers for this invitational is very impressive. And they do try very hard to recruit volunteers. I think over the course of December and January I received about 4 or 5 emails asking their email list for volunteers. Another thing to note is that the MIT Invitational occurs during IAP (not during the semester), so a good handful of students won't be on campus. So the volunteers might not necessarily know every single detail about the events they're helping out with either. But also note that rather than months of time in advance (or years of experience with SciO), some of these volunteers have never worked with SciO before and are just interested in helping out science-interested high school students, which is an amazing thing in and of itself. So yes, while in an ideal world we would have many proctor-level volunteers that could do everything perfectly, what MIT had was still extremely good.
UT Austin '19
Liberal Arts and Science Academy '15
Liberal Arts and Science Academy '15
-
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 228
- Joined: March 12th, 2017, 7:19 pm
- Division: C
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: MIT Invitational 2018
MIT was quite the experience to say the least... it's not often you see Solon, Troy, Harriton, Mentor, Boca, and other top schools together besides nationals. That being said, I felt that my expectations for this invitational were maybe a bit too high, but still a great tournament.
Towers: Please, please, please just use a regular testing rig. I assume MIT self-built their testing jig and autoloader? It seems strange that they would need to test the autoloader before first session and have it not work... regardless it was a shame that it could not be used. Despite the controversial... tower... it was decently run although the wait line got horrendously long at times - two testing rigs next time if possible?
Heli: It was fine. The ceiling was decent. Not much else to be said.
Materials Science: Confusing last question but why was lab worth the way it was? The points to time value (maybe not necessarily skill) seemed skewed but it was overall a fine test. Definitely, maybe it was used as a way to see who was able to best finish test portion first and differentiate top teams. However, teams that decided to split lab/test would, in my opinion, be unable to do well just because the lab took a while but wasn't worth much.
Code Busters: The test as a whole was quite interesting. The timed question didn't reward those who solved it faster enough due to the point value distribution. Questions were just standard testing the regular ciphers; not much to say there (oh wait please print enough copies so we can actually write on the tests)
Overall: I didn't get the vibe of excellence I thought I would get from this invitational. Having attended numerous invitationals from around the country, I still really enjoyed this one but I felt it could have done so much more. Giving us back wrong team tests is really frustrating (as some captains might know) and knowing how confusing the building numbering and what not is at MIT, why not dedicate only a few volunteers to moving people around at busy intersections? UPenn had this with volunteers and really helped. Best part of the day was definitely how smoothly awards ceremony ran. I guess it's now the tradition to get some guy to speak and stall for time... and worst part of the day was seeing who got first by how much
Thank you so much to the tournament organizers, event supervisors, proctors, and volunteers for giving us a great tournament! Hope to come back next year by not trading watermarked tests!
Towers: Please, please, please just use a regular testing rig. I assume MIT self-built their testing jig and autoloader? It seems strange that they would need to test the autoloader before first session and have it not work... regardless it was a shame that it could not be used. Despite the controversial... tower... it was decently run although the wait line got horrendously long at times - two testing rigs next time if possible?
Heli: It was fine. The ceiling was decent. Not much else to be said.
Materials Science: Confusing last question but why was lab worth the way it was? The points to time value (maybe not necessarily skill) seemed skewed but it was overall a fine test. Definitely, maybe it was used as a way to see who was able to best finish test portion first and differentiate top teams. However, teams that decided to split lab/test would, in my opinion, be unable to do well just because the lab took a while but wasn't worth much.
Code Busters: The test as a whole was quite interesting. The timed question didn't reward those who solved it faster enough due to the point value distribution. Questions were just standard testing the regular ciphers; not much to say there (oh wait please print enough copies so we can actually write on the tests)
Overall: I didn't get the vibe of excellence I thought I would get from this invitational. Having attended numerous invitationals from around the country, I still really enjoyed this one but I felt it could have done so much more. Giving us back wrong team tests is really frustrating (as some captains might know) and knowing how confusing the building numbering and what not is at MIT, why not dedicate only a few volunteers to moving people around at busy intersections? UPenn had this with volunteers and really helped. Best part of the day was definitely how smoothly awards ceremony ran. I guess it's now the tradition to get some guy to speak and stall for time... and worst part of the day was seeing who got first by how much
Thank you so much to the tournament organizers, event supervisors, proctors, and volunteers for giving us a great tournament! Hope to come back next year by not trading watermarked tests!
Sleep is for the week; one only needs it once a week
God bless Len Joeris | Balsaman
God bless Len Joeris | Balsaman
-
- Member
- Posts: 592
- Joined: January 5th, 2017, 9:39 am
- Division: Grad
- State: OH
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: MIT Invitational 2018
Speaking of towers, I heard that one of Troy's had blue glue running down the length of the main supports?Raleway wrote:MIT was quite the experience to say the least... it's not often you see Solon, Troy, Harriton, Mentor, Boca, and other top schools together besides nationals. That being said, I felt that my expectations for this invitational were maybe a bit too high, but still a great tournament.
Towers: Please, please, please just use a regular testing rig. I assume MIT self-built their testing jig and autoloader? It seems strange that they would need to test the autoloader before first session and have it not work... regardless it was a shame that it could not be used. Despite the controversial... tower... it was decently run although the wait line got horrendously long at times - two testing rigs next time if possible?
Heli: It was fine. The ceiling was decent. Not much else to be said.
Materials Science: Confusing last question but why was lab worth the way it was? The points to time value (maybe not necessarily skill) seemed skewed but it was overall a fine test. Definitely, maybe it was used as a way to see who was able to best finish test portion first and differentiate top teams. However, teams that decided to split lab/test would, in my opinion, be unable to do well just because the lab took a while but wasn't worth much.
Code Busters: The test as a whole was quite interesting. The timed question didn't reward those who solved it faster enough due to the point value distribution. Questions were just standard testing the regular ciphers; not much to say there (oh wait please print enough copies so we can actually write on the tests)
Overall: I didn't get the vibe of excellence I thought I would get from this invitational. Having attended numerous invitationals from around the country, I still really enjoyed this one but I felt it could have done so much more. Giving us back wrong team tests is really frustrating (as some captains might know) and knowing how confusing the building numbering and what not is at MIT, why not dedicate only a few volunteers to moving people around at busy intersections? UPenn had this with volunteers and really helped. Best part of the day was definitely how smoothly awards ceremony ran. I guess it's now the tradition to get some guy to speak and stall for time... and worst part of the day was seeing who got first by how much
Thank you so much to the tournament organizers, event supervisors, proctors, and volunteers for giving us a great tournament! Hope to come back next year by not trading watermarked tests!
Solon '19 Captain, CWRU '23
2017 (r/s/n): Hydro: 3/5/18 Robot Arm: na/1/1 Rocks: 1/1/1 2018 (r/s/n): Heli: 2/1/7 Herp: 1/4/4 Mission: 1/1/6 Rocks: 1/1/1 Eco: 6/3/9 2019 (r/s/n): Fossils: 1/1/1 GLM: 1/1/1 Herp: 1/1/5 Mission: 1/1/3 WS: 4/1/10 Top 3 Medals: 144 Golds: 80
-
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 228
- Joined: March 12th, 2017, 7:19 pm
- Division: C
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: MIT Invitational 2018
I don't know which Troy it was, but the square base non-bonus Troy tower did not have that. Does anyone know if Troy A went first session or was that Troy B? Thanks!
Sleep is for the week; one only needs it once a week
God bless Len Joeris | Balsaman
God bless Len Joeris | Balsaman
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests