MIT Invitational 2018

Area to advertise for your competitions!
arqto
Member
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: November 25th, 2017, 4:22 pm
Division: C
State: TX

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby arqto » January 22nd, 2018, 1:10 pm

Name wrote:What was a Fermi medal score

3rd with 129 points.
Clements High School '20
Cyfalls/MIT/Regionals/State
Chem Lab: 11/3/-/-
Dyplan: 1/1/2/2
Fossils: 4/3/1/2
Geomapping: 1/5/1/2
Codebusters: -/-/1/2

quantumk19
Member
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: January 7th, 2018, 8:09 pm
State: -

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby quantumk19 » January 22nd, 2018, 1:34 pm

How many questions was the fermi test total?

User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4043
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby Unome » January 22nd, 2018, 1:41 pm

quantumk19 wrote:How many questions was the fermi test total?

40
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

EleGiggle
Member
Member
Posts: 6
Joined: March 11th, 2017, 7:58 am
Division: C
State: OH

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby EleGiggle » January 22nd, 2018, 1:44 pm

Wait, does anyone have raw scores for events right now?
MASON HIGH SCHOOL '23

ScottMaurer19
Member
Member
Posts: 588
Joined: January 5th, 2017, 9:39 am
Division: Grad
State: OH
Location: Solon, OH

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby ScottMaurer19 » January 22nd, 2018, 1:46 pm

EleGiggle wrote:Wait, does anyone have raw scores for events right now?

MIT does not release raw scores. People are just posting the points they received on their tests (which they do get back).

Anyone in rocks want to post (Harriton and Mason in particular)?
Solon '19 Captain, CWRU '23
Placements:
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

kenniky
Member
Member
Posts: 283
Joined: January 21st, 2016, 6:16 pm
Division: Grad
State: MA
Location: ABRHS --> UMichigan

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby kenniky » January 22nd, 2018, 2:06 pm

I thought Optics was run really well because the kid running the laser shoot was really good at it

:^)

[In all seriousness the laser shoot this year was a significant step up in quality from last year]

varunscs11
Member
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: March 14th, 2015, 9:02 pm
Division: Grad
State: PA

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby varunscs11 » January 22nd, 2018, 2:17 pm

ScottMaurer19 wrote:
EleGiggle wrote:Wait, does anyone have raw scores for events right now?

MIT does not release raw scores. People are just posting the points they received on their tests (which they do get back).

Anyone in rocks want to post (Harriton and Mason in particular)?


What did you think of the rocks exam (I know I asked on the day of the competition)

PS: I made a huge doc with all the score breakdowns and it should hopefully come with the exam when MIT sends those out.
Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2015-2017
University of Pennsylvania 2021
MIT Rocks and Minerals 2018, Fossils 2019

varunscs11's Userpage

User avatar
Adi1008
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 465
Joined: December 6th, 2013, 1:56 pm
Division: Grad
State: TX
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby Adi1008 » January 22nd, 2018, 2:19 pm

This was my last time at MIT (unless I'm lucky enough to be able to help out next year) and it was possibly the best run for my events. Thank you to Science Olympiad at MIT for hosting another solid tournament and congratulations to Troy for an awe-inspiring, completely dominant performance.

Astronomy (1): Astronomy is my favorite event and this was one of my favorite tests; I especially liked the question about the energy budget of a type II supernova. However, I felt like the test was much too short and easy for something of MIT's caliber. My partner and I finished with ~25 minutes left and much of the test felt like mindlessly regurgitating facts on DSOs or plugging a few numbers into a some equations without a lot of critical thinking. Some of the questions briefly touched on some cool concepts (like the energy budget question and the URCA process question) but failed to really go in any depth or require some real analysis. Based on the few raw scores I know, it appears like numerous teams finished with >80-90% of the total points. The test was a joy to take and extremely high quality (as anything Donna and Tad do), but after hearing about the 37 (?) page Chemistry Lab test, the 700+ point Rocks and Minerals test, the crazy-hard DP test, or even looking back at the 2016 MIT Astronomy test, I can't help but wish this test was longer and more difficult.

WIDI (1): This structure was incredibly difficult for me and my partner. My partner has ~5 years of WIDI experience and didn't finish writing the entire structure and I didn't even finish building everything he wrote. I think the proctor's use of clay and the popsicle sticks was especially creative and although I perfectly understood everything my partner said, just building it was difficult because of how cramped the central cylinder and how fragile the popsicle stick base was for me. But that's what makes a WIDI structure good; in some places, it has to have stuff that's easy to write but hard to build, and in others, stuff that's hard to write but easy to build.

Hovercraft (2): The test was solid, as anything written by blakinator8 is. I felt like the test had a good mix of concepts and calculations and also a good spread in the difficulty/type of the questions. The build portion of the event was also run well, although I think having more volunteers could help in going faster. The only problem I'd have is with the impound process: it's incredibly time-consuming and tedious. I had two events in the first time slot (WIDI and Picture This) and ended up leaving my device in line and coming back to impound before going to WIDI (where I arrived right before the doers started, thankfully) and ended up waiting nearly an hour in line when it was all done. I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done about this aside from having more stations to check in devices with. Having another team member impound the device is a possibility, but often the ES asks questions about the construction of the device or asks the person impounding to turn the device on, which might be better done by the people who actually built the device. Hovercraft impound was like this last year at MIT and Golden Gate too.

Picture This (4): The proctors were incredibly nice in letting us go a bit early and being flexible due to my mess with Hovercraft impound/WIDI conflict. The words were nice and made sense and the event was run essentially perfectly.

Optics (10): The test was great, although included some questions that were extremely similar to last year's test. I think the test could have been slightly longer and more difficult, but it was still extremely solid overall. I personally hate the idea of counting sigfigs so much (having proper significant figures was half of each question's value, assuming you got it correct), but such is life. The LSS was run spectacularly well. The entire setup was essentially perfect and I can't think of anything that could be improved there. If I hadn't choked during the laser shoot, perhaps I could have had another medal.

I won't comment that much on other events but this is what I've briefly heard:
-Game On was a mess from start to end in nearly every aspect imaginable. It's been discussed quite a bit in the Game On thread so I won't really say much here. However, I'm sure the proctors really do care about running it well and tried everything they could. Just a very unfortunate situation for everyone.
-DP was incredibly difficult and long and filled with cool quotes and pictures and stuff. Although I know next to nothing about DP, I'm really looking forward to seeing this test.
-Fermi was very good
-Chem Lab was very long and very difficult
-Rocks was god-tier and I wish every test was like that
University of Texas at Austin '22
Seven Lakes High School '18
Beckendorff Junior High '14

ScottMaurer19
Member
Member
Posts: 588
Joined: January 5th, 2017, 9:39 am
Division: Grad
State: OH
Location: Solon, OH

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby ScottMaurer19 » January 22nd, 2018, 2:35 pm

varunscs11 wrote:
ScottMaurer19 wrote:
EleGiggle wrote:Wait, does anyone have raw scores for events right now?

MIT does not release raw scores. People are just posting the points they received on their tests (which they do get back).

Anyone in rocks want to post (Harriton and Mason in particular)?


What did you think of the rocks exam (I know I asked on the day of the competition)

PS: I made a huge doc with all the score breakdowns and it should hopefully come with the exam when MIT sends those out.


I liked the test (granted I did well on it so I'm a bit biased). My biggest struggle on the test was time, finding the specimen of the right letter (this isn't an issue that is easily fixed), and not having the standard context clues of questions due to the use of charts (also not really an issue with the test). The one station that offered points for providing the variety as well as the standard mineral I thought was creative and the specimens used and the questions asked were standard-difficult to ID and answer which is always nice to see. Questions such as the calculating the specific gravity are also ones I think should be used more often even if I don't get to answer them.

I have no comment on part A seeing as I handed that to my partner at the beginning of the test and pretty much only did stations for the entire time.

Overall a super high quality, fast-paced test that would have required at least 3 of me to finish. I look forward to taking the other 60% of the test when it is released :D
Any chance that pictures of the specimens will be accompanying the test when it is released?
Solon '19 Captain, CWRU '23
Placements:
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

User avatar
daydreamer0023
Member
Member
Posts: 195
Joined: January 29th, 2015, 5:44 pm
Division: Grad
State: -
Location: I have no idea where I am, but I can tell you exactly how fast I'm going ;)

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby daydreamer0023 » January 22nd, 2018, 2:52 pm

JonB wrote:
daydreamer0023 wrote:
Speaking of the opening ceremony...the admissions guy who stalled by telling stories. That was fairly entertaining. XD



Not sure I agree with that- for obvious reasons. He actually left a very bad impression on some of our competitors and parents that were there. One joke about Florida last year was funny. Asking why Florida teams decided to come back this year pushed the line but still had some humor, but telling Florida teams "you did your best" (I can't remember if that is an exact quote but it's very close) crossed the line (in my opinion). Some would say that we should "toughen up" but there is always a limit when you are the singling out groups of students who also work exceptionally hard. Some would say "he was completely kidding" but not all students read humor the same way.


Yeah...when I said entertaining, I mostly was referring to the stories he told. I also thought it was a bit too much with Florida. Given that we came from farther away than a reasonable single day drive from MIT (not to mention terrible road conditions in our home area), it is a bit much to bash a state that came even further.
"I am among those who think that science has great beauty. A scientist in his laboratory is not only a technician: he is also a child placed before natural phenomena which impress him like a fairy tale." - Marie Curie

Vrund
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: May 19th, 2017, 8:06 pm
State: -

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby Vrund » January 22nd, 2018, 3:19 pm

Anyone know what score placed in Remote Sensing ?

User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4043
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby Unome » January 22nd, 2018, 3:25 pm

Vrund wrote:Anyone know what score placed in Remote Sensing ?

30% would have been sufficient to medal.
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

varunscs11
Member
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: March 14th, 2015, 9:02 pm
Division: Grad
State: PA

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby varunscs11 » January 22nd, 2018, 5:35 pm

Adi1008 wrote:Rocks was god-tier and I wish every test was like that


Thank you for your kind words! Please tell Cole that I'm glad he enjoyed the exam and we appreciated his kind words on the answer sheet. :)

ScottMaurer19 wrote: I liked the test (granted I did well on it so I'm a bit biased). My biggest struggle on the test was time, finding the specimen of the right letter (this isn't an issue that is easily fixed), and not having the standard context clues of questions due to the use of charts (also not really an issue with the test). The one station that offered points for providing the variety as well as the standard mineral I thought was creative and the specimens used and the questions asked were standard-difficult to ID and answer which is always nice to see. Questions such as the calculating the specific gravity are also ones I think should be used more often even if I don't get to answer them.

I have no comment on part A seeing as I handed that to my partner at the beginning of the test and pretty much only did stations for the entire time.

Overall a super high quality, fast-paced test that would have required at least 3 of me to finish. I look forward to taking the other 60% of the test when it is released :D
Any chance that pictures of the specimens will be accompanying the test when it is released?


I apologize for the difficulty in being able to find the specimens of the right letter. I thought about how to organize the specimens and label them for a long time and came to the conclusion that there isn't really a great way to do it. I'm just glad that the labels didn't fall off the specimens. (Also sorry for the confusion between H's and I's).

I think you might have been the only one to explicitly state one of the specimens as Hackmanite, which was impressive cause in my opinion, it doesn't even look like a standard Sodalite specimen so props to you! I think in total maybe 2 or 3 teams even identified that specimen correctly. Another common mistake was identifying the blue calcite as celestite (which is why I actually bought that specimen in the first place :) )

I had to use the charts because my exam was too long and I didn't wanna make MIT print way too much (which I might have already hit).

But I'm glad that you enjoyed the exam and that you found the specific varieties interesting and creative.

If I remember correctly, no teams even attempted the metamorphic facies section and the Knoop value calculation, graph, and extrapolation. I hope you find those sections challenging and useful.

Regarding pictures, I have pictures for some of the specimens (the nicer ones) but not all. If you want them, just shoot me an email (on the key and answer sheet) and I'd be glad to send them.

And in general, if anyone has any questions regarding content feel free to email me. I'm pretty responsive and would be happy to do so. I know a lot of people thought my exam was a bit excessive and I agree - I thought a lot of the questions were too easy so I ended up adding more to make it harder and harder and it got out of hand. It was painful to grade and without my amazing volunteers, I would probably have finished after the awards ceremony. If I end of doing Fossils next year (fingers crossed) it probably won't be as long. But in general, I wanted to create an exam that went beyond the standard, rote memorization of an ID event - I wanted to actually test geologic principles (which was the purpose of Part A and some of the more application based questions).

P.S. The tourmaline specimen in the back was actually verdelite, a variety from Brazil. I think only two teams even got close to the bonus (both teams guessed elbaite).
Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2015-2017
University of Pennsylvania 2021
MIT Rocks and Minerals 2018, Fossils 2019

varunscs11's Userpage

ScottMaurer19
Member
Member
Posts: 588
Joined: January 5th, 2017, 9:39 am
Division: Grad
State: OH
Location: Solon, OH

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby ScottMaurer19 » January 22nd, 2018, 5:50 pm

varunscs11 wrote:
Adi1008 wrote:Rocks was god-tier and I wish every test was like that


Thank you for your kind words! Please tell Cole that I'm glad he enjoyed the exam and we appreciated his kind words on the answer sheet. :)

ScottMaurer19 wrote: I liked the test (granted I did well on it so I'm a bit biased). My biggest struggle on the test was time, finding the specimen of the right letter (this isn't an issue that is easily fixed), and not having the standard context clues of questions due to the use of charts (also not really an issue with the test). The one station that offered points for providing the variety as well as the standard mineral I thought was creative and the specimens used and the questions asked were standard-difficult to ID and answer which is always nice to see. Questions such as the calculating the specific gravity are also ones I think should be used more often even if I don't get to answer them.

I have no comment on part A seeing as I handed that to my partner at the beginning of the test and pretty much only did stations for the entire time.

Overall a super high quality, fast-paced test that would have required at least 3 of me to finish. I look forward to taking the other 60% of the test when it is released :D
Any chance that pictures of the specimens will be accompanying the test when it is released?


I apologize for the difficulty in being able to find the specimens of the right letter. I thought about how to organize the specimens and label them for a long time and came to the conclusion that there isn't really a great way to do it. I'm just glad that the labels didn't fall off the specimens. (Also sorry for the confusion between H's and I's).

I think you might have been the only one to explicitly state one of the specimens as Hackmanite, which was impressive cause in my opinion, it doesn't even look like a standard Sodalite specimen so props to you! I think in total maybe 2 or 3 teams even identified that specimen correctly. Another common mistake was identifying the blue calcite as celestite (which is why I actually bought that specimen in the first place :) )

I had to use the charts because my exam was too long and I didn't wanna make MIT print way too much (which I might have already hit).

But I'm glad that you enjoyed the exam and that you found the specific varieties interesting and creative.

If I remember correctly, no teams even attempted the metamorphic facies section and the Knoop value calculation, graph, and extrapolation. I hope you find those sections challenging and useful.

Regarding pictures, I have pictures for some of the specimens (the nicer ones) but not all. If you want them, just shoot me an email (on the key and answer sheet) and I'd be glad to send them.

And in general, if anyone has any questions regarding content feel free to email me. I'm pretty responsive and would be happy to do so. I know a lot of people thought my exam was a bit excessive and I agree - I thought a lot of the questions were too easy so I ended up adding more to make it harder and harder and it got out of hand. It was painful to grade and without my amazing volunteers, I would probably have finished after the awards ceremony. But in general, I wanted to create an exam that went beyond the standard, rote memorization of an ID event - I wanted to actually test geologic principles (which was the purpose of Part A and some of the more application based questions).

P.S. The tourmaline specimen in the back was actually verdelite, a variety from Brazil. I think only two teams even got close to the bonus (both teams guessed elbaite).

I thought is was elbaite too :o (the hackmanite I only got because of "tenebrescence" which gave it away for me) I figured that most people missed the calcite based on your comment on the test :)
There was nothing wrong with the charts it simply made it more challenging and less based on testing skills and more on actually being able to ID the specimens.
I will likely send an email at some point so that I can practice and/or use it for coaching Div B
Solon '19 Captain, CWRU '23
Placements:
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

jkang
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: October 17th, 2014, 8:49 pm
Division: Grad
State: TX

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby jkang » January 22nd, 2018, 6:21 pm

varunscs11 wrote:What did you think of the rocks exam (I know I asked on the day of the competition)
PS: I made a huge doc with all the score breakdowns and it should hopefully come with the exam when MIT sends those out.

3long5MIT
UT Austin '19
Liberal Arts and Science Academy '15


Return to “2018 Invitationals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest