MIT Invitational 2018

Area to advertise for your competitions!
Kimmy
Member
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: January 25th, 2018, 8:25 pm
Division: C
State: OH

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby Kimmy » January 25th, 2018, 8:35 pm

theres been a significant lack of bio event talk. :?: any comments on disease or microbe? any medaling raw scores??

wangpeng
Member
Member
Posts: 1
Joined: January 25th, 2018, 1:50 pm
State: -

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby wangpeng » January 25th, 2018, 8:38 pm

Does anyone know who the proctor for code busters was? He was an Indian guy wearing a red jacket.

User avatar
Alex-RCHS
Member
Member
Posts: 530
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:46 pm
Division: C
State: NC
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby Alex-RCHS » January 25th, 2018, 9:55 pm

Can anyone report what the lower range of mousetrap car scores were? Like, in the 30s?
About me!
Raleigh Charter HS (NC) 2018
UNC-Chapel Hill 2022

fireon95
Member
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: June 29th, 2014, 9:50 pm
Division: C
State: NV

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby fireon95 » January 25th, 2018, 11:25 pm

Forensics(9) I felt like this was a really good test, as it was both really long and challenging. However, saying that, me and my partner were both surprised at how well we placed. This was basically our second time meeting for this event, and we hadn't taken any practice tests before. I just felt we got really lucky, since we guessed the same suspect every time the test asked for a suspect. Overall a really good test though.
Chem lab(9) This was a really good test also. The content was really difficult and it was really long which was good for us.
Material Science(15) This was still a pretty good test. However, I felt like it focused a lot on ochem and nothing we put on our cheatsheet, so we ended up guessing for over half the test. The lab was interesting but kind of difficult to perform, since the creeprate substance didn't really move. Overall it was still a pretty good test overall.
Game on(17) I got carried by my partner :)

oamtun
Member
Member
Posts: 1
Joined: January 2nd, 2017, 12:10 am
Division: C
State: NV

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby oamtun » January 26th, 2018, 12:04 am

Mission Possible (8): This was very well-run. The proctors were knowledgeable and ran down the rules accordingly. However, one small issue that I saw was that the 10cm and 20cm of the transfers weren’t measured at all. That should be done to be sure teams are following the rules.
Game On (8): We’ve all heard the stories. Our experience was pretty crazy. We went in a total of 4 times because the game was never saved correctly or kept crashing, interfering with our other events. The way games were being saved kept being changed throughout the day as well. By the end, they had it figured out, but it should’ve been practiced prior because it wasn’t consistent for all teams. Additionally, the proctors set the game type as two-player racing which is the national level. It states in the rules that at invitationals, you must only assign collection, avoidance, and maze. I overheard them discussing this rule mix up, but it should’ve been more explicitly stated that they would adhere to national rules and not invitational rules for Game On to coaches. They even changed the rules on their website from invitational to national after the tournament, as other people have noticed. http://scioly.mit.edu/rules/
Optics (26): This was pretty well run and the test was solid. The box was well built. Neat job.
Thermodynamics (55): I don’t even know. Some boxes were placed right under drafts while others weren’t so that made inconsistencies. The proctor would put the thermometer in, but not make contact with the water (from what I’ve heard from many) and the teams were called in random orders. There is supposed to be a set time for all teams. There were also teams caught with their phones out but nothing was done about it. The control beaker for some teams had been modified by placing different materials under it which isn’t allowed. There should’ve been better monitoring.
Code Busters (33): Pretty fun! It was a well-run trial event and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

All in all, this has been the most well-run tournament I’ve been to and congratulate MIT on it, but there are definitely some cracks. I hope to see these improved in the future and look forward to next year! :)
oamtun

2015- robocross, simple machines, road scholar, sumobot, roller coaster
2016- mission possible, scrambler, crave the wave
2017- robot arm, wind power, optics
2018- mission possible, optics, game on, thermodynamics, code busters

Private Wang Fire
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: June 1st, 2015, 3:43 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby Private Wang Fire » January 26th, 2018, 5:41 am

Kimmy wrote:theres been a significant lack of bio event talk. :?: any comments on disease or microbe? any medaling raw scores??


The disease test was pretty vanilla. I liked the shots at SnD, but also I'm pretty sure info needed to complete all the calculations in the stats sections was missing. Better than the average test, but not as great as the massive MMWR case study packets the Ohio state people drop on us.

Alex-RCHS wrote:Can anyone report what the lower range of mousetrap car scores were? Like, in the 30s?


I think someone already said their 3rd place score was in the mid teens on the mousetrap forum. I think a score in the 30s would probably have placed ~15th.
MASON HIGH SCHOOL '18

User avatar
allopathie
Member
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: April 5th, 2017, 8:06 pm
Division: Grad
State: PA
Location: Die Mitte der Welt
Contact:

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby allopathie » January 26th, 2018, 2:52 pm

Microbes (9): Just got the answer key today, but 4 of the MC questions had wrong answers (our answer was correct, answer key was wrong). Point differences between the top 10 teams were very small. Good test overall, though none of it was particularly difficult.
Ecology (2): Lost the tiebreaker with Mason (sad). Same proctor and format as last year, but easier questions (our raw score was 8% higher than last year). Great for differentiating between top teams.
Dynamic Planet (1): Good, comprehensive test but left most of it blank.
Experimental Design (4): MIT could and should have been more creative/elaborate with this (I mean, they had lasers last year!). We had nearly the same experiment at a lower tier invitational. Also, complaints with grading; we lost points for sections that had obviously been done (i.e. no points at all were given).
...
MIT Campus: 0/10. Reminded again of how depressing the brutalist architecture is. UChicago > Caltech > Ivies >>> MIT.
Last edited by allopathie on January 29th, 2018, 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PA Water Quality C Event Supervisor.
Harriton '18, Penn '22.
Facebook

knottingpurple
Member
Member
Posts: 214
Joined: April 10th, 2016, 5:44 am
Division: Grad
State: NJ
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby knottingpurple » January 26th, 2018, 3:18 pm

allopathie wrote:Microbes (9): Just got the answer key today, but 4 of the MC questions had wrong answers (our answer was correct, answer key was wrong). Obviously can't share, but point differences between the top 10 teams were very small. Good test overall, though none of it was particularly difficult.
Ecology (2): Lost the tiebreaker with Mason (sad). Same proctor and format as last year, but easier questions (our raw score was 8% higher than last year). Great for differentiating between top teams.
Dynamic Planet (1): Good, comprehensive test but left most of it blank.
Experimental Design (4): MIT could and should have been more creative/elaborate with this (I mean, they had lasers last year!). We had nearly the same experiment at a lower tier invitational. Also, complaints with grading; we lost points for sections that had obviously been done (i.e. no points at all were given).
...
MIT Campus: 0/10. Reminded again of how depressing the brutalist architecture is. UChicago > Caltech > Ivies >>> MIT.


When I visited Harvey Mudd they talked a lot about being rated the ugliest college campus in America, maybe you should visit them!

(Also, how is MIT's campus ugly? It has a big fat river.)
"She was determined to drop his acquaintance immediately, and she was very thankful that she had never been acquainted with him at all... she hated him so much that she was resolved never to mention his name again, and she should tell everybody she saw, how good-for-nothing he was."

User avatar
EastStroudsburg13
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2986
Joined: January 17th, 2009, 7:32 am
Division: Grad
State: MD
Location: At work trying to be a real adult
Contact:

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby EastStroudsburg13 » January 26th, 2018, 4:52 pm

MIT's campus definitely puts more emphasis on practicality than looking pretty. I for one really enjoy the concept of most of the buildings being connected without having to go outside.

Also, if you dislike MIT's campus that much, do not visit Drexel. It's convenient from a practical perspective but pretty is not a way to describe it.
East Stroudsburg South Class of 2012, Alumnus of JT Lambert, Drexel University Class of 2017

Helpful Links
Wiki
Wiki Pages that Need Work
FAQ and SciOly FAQ Wiki
Chat (See IRC Wiki for more info)
BBCode Wiki


If you have any questions for me, always feel free to shoot me a PM.

User avatar
blakinator8
Member
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: November 11th, 2012, 8:39 am
Division: Grad
State: TX
Location: Texas

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby blakinator8 » January 28th, 2018, 8:17 am

Image

I've decided to make another unlabeled plot of the hovercraft scores. The exam score and "device" score (all components other than ES) were separated and independently sorted. This means, for example, that the highest device score doesn't necessarily correspond to the highest exam or overall score. The exam had a nice, reasonably linear distribution that looks good. The devices were another story- it's clear that a minority of teams had functional devices that got any significant scores.
Proud member of the Liberal Arts and Science Academy team, 2012-2015

syo_astro
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 591
Joined: December 3rd, 2011, 9:45 pm
Division: Grad
State: NY
Contact:

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby syo_astro » January 28th, 2018, 10:18 am

@blakinator:
Wondering for interpretation (hopefully this will help others too), what are the axes? Is it number of teams vs. score? Score vs. placing? I was thinking the former, but I'm unsure and wondering why the decrease should be linear (which I'm unsure if it is just looking at the graph anyway).
B: Crave the Wave, Environmental Chemistry, Robo-Cross, Meteorology, Physical Science Lab, Solar System, DyPlan (E and V), Shock Value
C: Microbe Mission, DyPlan (Earth's Fresh Waters), Fermi Questions, GeoMaps, Gravity Vehicle, Scrambler, Rocks, Astronomy
Grad: Writing Tests/Supervising (NY/MI)

User avatar
Adi1008
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 444
Joined: December 6th, 2013, 1:56 pm
Division: Grad
State: TX
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby Adi1008 » January 28th, 2018, 10:29 am

syo_astro wrote:@blakinator:
Wondering for interpretation (hopefully this will help others too), what are the axes? Is it number of teams vs. score? Score vs. placing? I was thinking the former, but I'm unsure and wondering why the decrease should be linear (which I'm unsure if it is just looking at the graph anyway).

I'm guessing that the vertical scale is almost completely arbitrary to prevent people from analyzing it too much. I think he ranked all the build scores separately and the test scores separately from greatest to least. The numbers on the horizontal axis represent the "place" of those scores. For example, the "5" represents the fifth highest test score and fifth highest build score, which could be from two completely different teams that finished at any place overall
University of Texas at Austin '22
Seven Lakes High School '18
Beckendorff Junior High '14

User avatar
blakinator8
Member
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: November 11th, 2012, 8:39 am
Division: Grad
State: TX
Location: Texas

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby blakinator8 » January 28th, 2018, 2:39 pm

Adi1008 wrote:I'm guessing that the vertical scale is almost completely arbitrary to prevent people from analyzing it too much. I think he ranked all the build scores separately and the test scores separately from greatest to least. The numbers on the horizontal axis represent the "place" of those scores. For example, the "5" represents the fifth highest test score and fifth highest build score, which could be from two completely different teams that finished at any place overall


This is correct.
Proud member of the Liberal Arts and Science Academy team, 2012-2015

User avatar
ElPotato
Member
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: March 11th, 2017, 6:41 pm
Division: Grad
State: MI

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby ElPotato » January 28th, 2018, 7:49 pm

oamtun wrote:Mission Possible (8): This was very well-run. The proctors were knowledgeable and ran down the rules accordingly. However, one small issue that I saw was that the 10cm and 20cm of the transfers weren’t measured at all. That should be done to be sure teams are following the rules.
Game On (8): We’ve all heard the stories. Our experience was pretty crazy. We went in a total of 4 times because the game was never saved correctly or kept crashing, interfering with our other events. The way games were being saved kept being changed throughout the day as well. By the end, they had it figured out, but it should’ve been practiced prior because it wasn’t consistent for all teams. Additionally, the proctors set the game type as two-player racing which is the national level. It states in the rules that at invitationals, you must only assign collection, avoidance, and maze. I overheard them discussing this rule mix up, but it should’ve been more explicitly stated that they would adhere to national rules and not invitational rules for Game On to coaches. They even changed the rules on their website from invitational to national after the tournament, as other people have noticed. http://scioly.mit.edu/rules/
Optics (26): This was pretty well run and the test was solid. The box was well built. Neat job.
Thermodynamics (55): I don’t even know. Some boxes were placed right under drafts while others weren’t so that made inconsistencies. The proctor would put the thermometer in, but not make contact with the water (from what I’ve heard from many) and the teams were called in random orders. There is supposed to be a set time for all teams. There were also teams caught with their phones out but nothing was done about it. The control beaker for some teams had been modified by placing different materials under it which isn’t allowed. There should’ve been better monitoring.
Code Busters (33): Pretty fun! It was a well-run trial event and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

All in all, this has been the most well-run tournament I’ve been to and congratulate MIT on it, but there are definitely some cracks. I hope to see these improved in the future and look forward to next year! :)


I also thought that Thermo was pretty messy. I think we sat around for the first 15 min before any of the tests were passed out or anyone got called up to run their device. When I got the temperature of my water, it was more than 12 degrees lower than what I was originally told. I think it may have been due to the fact that the supervisors were unfamiliar with the event themselves, as they also asked for the predicted temperature of the outside beaker.

The test was well written though, and it provided a great challenge on both the MCs and FRQs. Probably the hardest test I've taken all season.
Also anyone have their HRFs? Would like to compare ;)
2015 Crave the Wave
2016 Bio-Process Lab
2019 Sounds of Music

JT880
Member
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: June 25th, 2017, 7:16 am
Division: C
State: DC

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby JT880 » January 28th, 2018, 8:30 pm

ElPotato wrote:
oamtun wrote:Mission Possible (8): This was very well-run. The proctors were knowledgeable and ran down the rules accordingly. However, one small issue that I saw was that the 10cm and 20cm of the transfers weren’t measured at all. That should be done to be sure teams are following the rules.
Game On (8): We’ve all heard the stories. Our experience was pretty crazy. We went in a total of 4 times because the game was never saved correctly or kept crashing, interfering with our other events. The way games were being saved kept being changed throughout the day as well. By the end, they had it figured out, but it should’ve been practiced prior because it wasn’t consistent for all teams. Additionally, the proctors set the game type as two-player racing which is the national level. It states in the rules that at invitationals, you must only assign collection, avoidance, and maze. I overheard them discussing this rule mix up, but it should’ve been more explicitly stated that they would adhere to national rules and not invitational rules for Game On to coaches. They even changed the rules on their website from invitational to national after the tournament, as other people have noticed. http://scioly.mit.edu/rules/
Optics (26): This was pretty well run and the test was solid. The box was well built. Neat job.
Thermodynamics (55): I don’t even know. Some boxes were placed right under drafts while others weren’t so that made inconsistencies. The proctor would put the thermometer in, but not make contact with the water (from what I’ve heard from many) and the teams were called in random orders. There is supposed to be a set time for all teams. There were also teams caught with their phones out but nothing was done about it. The control beaker for some teams had been modified by placing different materials under it which isn’t allowed. There should’ve been better monitoring.
Code Busters (33): Pretty fun! It was a well-run trial event and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

All in all, this has been the most well-run tournament I’ve been to and congratulate MIT on it, but there are definitely some cracks. I hope to see these improved in the future and look forward to next year! :)


I also thought that Thermo was pretty messy. I think we sat around for the first 15 min before any of the tests were passed out or anyone got called up to run their device. When I got the temperature of my water, it was more than 12 degrees lower than what I was originally told. I think it may have been due to the fact that the supervisors were unfamiliar with the event themselves, as they also asked for the predicted temperature of the outside beaker.

The test was well written though, and it provided a great challenge on both the MCs and FRQs. Probably the hardest test I've taken all season.
Also anyone have their HRFs? Would like to compare ;)

Thermodynamics was not run well at all, especially during the first time slot. They should have began heating the water well before the competitors arrived and not during the time slot. Seriously, how do you run an event about thermodynamics and not know that it takes a long time for water to heat up, especially with larger volumes? During this time the proctors were joking around while all the competitors sat there not doing anything and watching uncomfortable for around 15 minutes.

Finally, when the water was "ready" (after hearing that the water was more than 12 degrees lower than originally stated, I hesitate to say the water was actually "ready" to be handed out), they began calling teams up. When it was our turn to have water poured into our beakers, the lady spilled some of the water while pouring it in and said that "it was close enough". Now our team had an unknown amount of water in our test beaker (the beakers are graduated in intervals of 25mL), which almost certainly threw us off. My partner and I measured room temperature to be 4 or 5 degrees off from what the proctors originally stated. Once the cooling period was over, one of the proctors began asking us to predict the temperature of the uninsulated beaker, to which we tried correcting her but got shut down.

Taken as a whole, I thought that this event was run horribly and that the only saving grace was the written test, which had one of the best free response sections I have ever seen. I hope that next year the proctors will have learned from their mistakes and will do their best to make this event a better experience for everyone, competitors and supervisors alike.
Washington D.C.

2018 Events
Hovercraft, Optics, Thermodynamics, Dynamic Planet, Mousetrap Vehicle


Return to “2018 Invitationals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest