I thought MIT had mostly the same quality as last year, with a few exceptions. They should have clarified the level they would use; I thought it was regionals-level as well, but that's an easy fix for next year. I also thought this year was much more competitive than previous years, but that's definitely something good for the amount of distance we flew to get here.
Picture This (4): Pretty good. Proctors were nice with letting us go early since one of my partners had WIDI the same time slot. I always do this event for fun and it was a great time. The words were good too; not too difficult or easy, and doesn't include stuff like 'pineapple' (from last year)
Herpetology (4): The test was pretty difficult but definitely good. I thought a few things were a bit obscure, though we get a whole binder for the event so it's fine. Pretty long and fast paced; if you want to finish the station, it requires both partners and having things memorized, instead of flipping through the binder a ton. Overall a great test and will help our binder a lot.
Dynamic Planet (2): Also a great test, I had a lot of fun taking it. Was long (~26 pages), but I really liked the long paragraphs that made you think rather than regurgitate information. I just wish we had more time to do it, instead of blowing through and answering everything we knew immediately for times sake. Nonetheless it was my favorite event to do and I'll look forward to going through the test again. This is random but the desks were really small and there were so many pages in the test and answer sheet, so half our things were sprawled on the ground a lot of the time (we didn't have time to care to clean it up). It's picky to mention but it would be great to have more room next year
Game On (55): I want to start out with saying it isn't fair to blame the proctors and ES for how poorly it was run. They made a good effort with the disastrous situation they had, with running Scratch on Linux (which makes games crash), having a ton of teams from the first few time slots having to come back and redo their game, saving problems, having to pull random people who had no experience with the event to grade, etc. The prompt was great and a nice one to do, but I don't understand how teams can be tiered for 'not understanding two player racing' when it isn't expanded on in the rules manual or anywhere that I know of. I personally thought this was the event that I did the best on, regardless of our placing, and MIT needs to improve on grading, etc., next year. Having to pull random people who know nothing about game on to grade is bad, and extremely biased with so many different graders. Finding rooms, grading so many games, etc. can be difficult, which I understand, but what happened is something that is way below the quality of MIT, and it feels almost robbed to spend so much time on a game to have it graded by someone who doesn't know what's going on.
Seven Lakes High School '19