Page 17 of 27

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Posted: January 22nd, 2018, 6:56 pm
by alleycat03
On another note, I’ve kinda been awaiting some spicy event ratings, would anyone like to start?
Forensics (10): Pikachu, I absolutely loved your forensics test! It was extremely well written and I especially loved the Stranger Things theme. It was a very difficult test, definitely on par with the nationals test last year. I especially liked how you organized all of the crime scene samples into baggies per team. That must’ve been super time consuming, but it was really nice to have our own samples. Only problem I saw with the event was only 2 microscopes for all 12 teams (during our time slot) and 2 Bunsen burners. It was also a little crowded with so many teams set up super close together. I don’t think that was your fault at all, that was just the set-up of the room. But a larger room with more microscopes and Bunsen burners would be even better! Overall, I really enjoyed your test and you did an outstanding job!

Ecology (31): This test was difficult, possibly harder than the test at nationals last year. I think it would have been a lot better as just a straight up test instead of stations. I didn’t really see the need for the stations. Otherwise, the content was solid and difficult.

Herpetology (38): This test was super hard. Having to ID 51 specimen in 4 minutes was so stressful. I think the stations were very difficult, but not unreasonable. They could’ve dialed it down a little bit but it wasn’t awful. I thought the line in the instructions that said “if you’re feeling overwhelmed you are allowed to leave” (paraphrased) was hilarious, because after I looked at the answer sheet and listened to all of their directions I was definitely feeling overwhelmed. Also, I think the PowerPoint with sounds could’ve been incorporated better. It was stressful to try and finish the PowerPoint questions while also answering the station questions. Overall, a solid and difficult test.

This is the second time my school has competed outside of the Kansas City area (we went to Rice last year), and it was a really nice change of pace from our usual invitationals. The tests were difficult and high-caliber and exactly what we were hoping for at MIT. We came here for high-caliber competition and difficult tests, and that’s what we got. I am happy with how we did as a team (25th!), and we are already working hard on getting better for regionals, state, and (hopefully) nationals.

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Posted: January 22nd, 2018, 7:20 pm
by shoujolivia
I had a lot of fun at the MIT invitational this past weekend!! Although I didn't do as well in my events as I would have liked to, I ended up medaling 6th in Picture This, which was pretty cool. Heading to Golden Gate this weekend, so I hope I can perform better!!
Personally, I thought Picture This was really well-run and really broke up the seriousness of the day!! I found myself having a lot of fun with my partners and I don't regret taking on a trial event at all.
Herpetology was hard as heck (cough, station 11) but I didn't expect anything less from MIT. I anticipated sounds but didn't study anything other than frogs which made me kinda sad.
WIDI was also difficult as expected, and my complaint is the room that it was run in. The size of the desks added an element of frustration when I'd shift and the sticks would fall over (unless that was intentional, in which case, maybe I should practice on smaller desks).
The crown jewel of the evening was having a pair of my teammates beat Troy A in an event.
Finally, a question to anyone that helped write the MIT tests, would anybody else be open to answering questions like with Rocks? I know myself and many others on my team have questions about material that couldn't be answered by resources through our school (such as imaging on Remote).

(p.s. thank you unome for predicting our team to come in at 22!! we set it as our baseline and we surpassed expectations!!!! super grateful + we'll try to do the same at ggso!!)

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Posted: January 22nd, 2018, 7:36 pm
by JShap
Finally, a question to anyone that helped write the MIT tests, would anybody else be open to answering questions like with Rocks? I know myself and many others on my team have questions about material that couldn't be answered by resources through our school (such as imaging on Remote).
If anyone has questions about the remote sensing test you can DM or email me (js731@duke.edu) and I will be happy to explain stuff.

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Posted: January 22nd, 2018, 7:41 pm
by Joycegu99
Hi all! One of the herp supervisors here.
Yeah, I apologize for the stress our test caused people. As a test writer you kinda lose track of how many questions are able to be answered in a certain amount of time. We definitely wrote it so that you had to use smart test-taking strategies - maximizing points across easy questions, splitting apart longer sections, etc - and we were super impressed by the teams that did pull it off. Also, thank you all for your patience during my spotty Powerpoint sounds and Royce's long rambling instructions.

Like we said on the cover page of our test and after the event, we always love to hear more feedback and answer any questions you guys might have! Here's our email addresses again:
jmg120@duke.edu
royce.lee@yale.edu

If we get the okay from the MIT gods, I will post the raw score distribution.

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Posted: January 22nd, 2018, 7:46 pm
by nicholasmaurer
On another note, I’ve kinda been awaiting some spicy event ratings, would anyone like to start?
Ecology (31): This test was difficult, possibly harder than the test at nationals last year. I think it would have been a lot better as just a straight up test instead of stations. I didn’t really see the need for the stations. Otherwise, the content was solid and difficult.
I'm glad it was a challenging test! I debated the merits of stations vs. a regular test. Ultimately, I decided upon stations for two reasons. First, it limits the amount of paper that needs to be printed (2 copies of 15 stations rather than 70+ copies of an exam). Second, I think the pressure and time crunch of stations really forces people to think quickly and not rely too heavily on their notes.

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Posted: January 22nd, 2018, 7:46 pm
by shoujolivia
we always love to hear more feedback and answer any questions you guys might have! Here's our email addresses again:
jmg120@duke.edu
royce.lee@yale.edu

If we get the okay from the MIT gods, I will post the raw score distribution.
wow thank you!!! i'm really curious about the top raw scores + i'll definitely send an email after i study for/make up the calc test i missed.

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Posted: January 22nd, 2018, 7:52 pm
by pikachu4919
Oh yeah, if anyone has questions about or feedback on the Forensics exam, feel free to contact me! PM on scioly.org or email me at the address I provided on the answer sheet (liu1841@purdue.edu)!

(I may also post a raw score distribution if it's OK to and if enough people are interested) <-- they already said no :(

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Posted: January 22nd, 2018, 8:02 pm
by slowpoke
If anyone has questions, feedback, etc. for Materials Science I am also available by PM or at the email on the cover page!

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Posted: January 22nd, 2018, 8:05 pm
by varunscs11
Finally, a question to anyone that helped write the MIT tests, would anybody else be open to answering questions like with Rocks? I know myself and many others on my team have questions about material that couldn't be answered by resources through our school (such as imaging on Remote).
Yes, anyone interested in getting answers for Rocks and Minerals can email me at varunscs@sas.upenn.edu

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Posted: January 22nd, 2018, 8:27 pm
by alleycat03
On another note, I’ve kinda been awaiting some spicy event ratings, would anyone like to start?
Ecology (31): This test was difficult, possibly harder than the test at nationals last year. I think it would have been a lot better as just a straight up test instead of stations. I didn’t really see the need for the stations. Otherwise, the content was solid and difficult.
I'm glad it was a challenging test! I debated the merits of stations vs. a regular test. Ultimately, I decided upon stations for two reasons. First, it limits the amount of paper that needs to be printed (2 copies of 15 stations rather than 70+ copies of an exam). Second, I think the pressure and time crunch of stations really forces people to think quickly and not rely too heavily on their notes.
That definitely makes sense. You’re saving some trees by doing stations ;) The time crunch was difficult, but not impossible. There were definitely a few times where I was like “oh shoot, I have this in the notes but I don’t have time to look for it!” Overall, it was a well-run test. Thank you for working so hard on it!