MIT Invitational 2018

Area to advertise for your competitions!
syo_astro
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 592
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: 478
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

@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

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

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

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

User avatar
PM2017
Member
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: January 20th, 2017, 5:02 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby PM2017 » January 29th, 2018, 2:19 pm

How much does attending the MIT Invitational cost in general? My team would like to participate next year, but it seems like a logistical nightmare to get all the funds and the organization in place.

A follow up question would be, how do teams pay for MIT?
West High '19
UC Berkeley '23

Go Bears!

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

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby Vrund » January 29th, 2018, 2:37 pm

Anyone have the email for the thermodynamics event supervisor. Have a few questions about the test I'd like to ask.

4Head
Member
Member
Posts: 237
Joined: November 14th, 2016, 11:29 am
Division: C

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby 4Head » January 29th, 2018, 3:05 pm

How much does attending the MIT Invitational cost in general? My team would like to participate next year, but it seems like a logistical nightmare to get all the funds and the organization in place.

A follow up question would be, how do teams pay for MIT?
Which state are you in? The cost will vary a ton depending on your location.

Edit: in addition, our school holds fundraisers to offset some of the cost from students for invites.
2019 Sounds of Music National Champion

User avatar
pikachu4919
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 677
Joined: December 7th, 2012, 2:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: IN
Location: West [Favorite Fightin' Frenchman!]

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby pikachu4919 » January 29th, 2018, 3:33 pm

Anyone have the email for the thermodynamics event supervisor. Have a few questions about the test I'd like to ask.
vincentl@mit.edu
Carmel HS (IN) '16
Purdue BiolE '20
Nationals 2016 ~ 4th place Forensics


Not throwin' away my shot!
MY CABBAGES!

pikachu4919's Userpage

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

Rate my tests!

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

Re: MIT Invitational 2018

Postby Vrund » January 29th, 2018, 3:47 pm

Anyone have the email for the thermodynamics event supervisor. Have a few questions about the test I'd like to ask.
vincentl@mit.edu
Thank you!


Return to “2018 Invitationals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest