Page 16 of 20

Re: Cornell Invitational (Division B and C)

Posted: February 17th, 2019, 6:17 pm
by faker
shoujolivia wrote:hello friends;
cornell was pretty lit but i would really like a feedback survey for some of it.
expd: this event started late but i kinda understand why. this event slot ended at the same time the next started, so i ran to baker in the snow and that kinda sucked. all in all, not something the committee can necessarily control. however, maybe the times between events didn’t really provide for the actual time taken to travel. also they gave my team 5th but wrote 2nd on their test :\\\\
scitech bowl: i liked this, 10/10. my teammates and i had a great time.
parasitology: i medaled in this, 10/10. i actually studied so hard and i kinda had a mental breakdown but i really enjoyed this event. thanks for the 3rd place!!!!
herpetology: didn’t follow the rules super closely but i think it was a pretty great, creative test otherwise
protein: i know not rly under their control but the computers were kinda tragic and they changed the residues midway through our timeslot. 6/10
wright stuff: alright.... next time please listen to coaches when they voice concerns about the venue. if possible, please check in/do flights simultaneously (like check in outside the flight room) so that they don’t have a giant holdup like what is what happened. 3/10 (can’t believe they got a branch from outside to get that plane down from the ceiling)
awards: i really appreciated that they shouted out nevada even though they said nevada not nevada. i had a great time chatting w/ camas and screaming for everyone HAHA.

clark hs had a great time thanks cornell + all the buds we met!!!!
The room was fine though, only issue was the chairs, but it essentially made it the same height as the SOUP ceiling. I was unhappy about room conditions, but given the fact that it was more realistic to fly in a smaller room in order to keep times lower, therefore allowing for shorter flight periods, making it more realistic to keep the competition on time. The hold up was not the fault of the ESs rather the tournament for holding more 8 or more teams per time slot, with many teams taking close to the full 11 minutes allotted for pre-flight and flight periods. Also, there were some teams, such as yours who were refusing to go until a certain time or team had gone, in your case, you wanted to go last. And the branch is something teams will have to do if they don't have/bring a stick.

Other news, Northville should've been DQed for violating rule 4b, and getting a stick from outside the testing room, during their 8 minutes, and getting down the only plane they checked in. I wouldn't be bothered by this, except for the fact they got first and taking a loss at an invitational and knowing next time to bring all potential tools and parts, would be more beneficial than letting them violate it and then have them do it again at a more important competition such as regionals, states, or nationals.

Re: Cornell Invitational (Division B and C)

Posted: February 17th, 2019, 6:44 pm
by IvanGe
my views :

battery buggy(7th) : they had impound during the event time block so it resulted in teams taking longer to get through. hopefully they get a gym floor for nats? idk my preferences since the space is bigger so I can actually set up my alignment devices Otherwise, well run event. proctors were nice (8/10)

elastic(12th) : bad venue. my gliders were broken in the first place but the poles were a big obstacle along with the wind near the ceiling due to the door. proctors were extremely nice (5/10)

fossils (2nd) : great test, challenging and extremely fast paced. i arrived 15 minutes late due to buggy so my partner had to solo the first 7 stations which was :////. i got confused about where to go for the stations so it resulted in some time being lost (9/10)

potions (3rd) : nice test. the labs were challenging and required a lot of time to do them. some of the questions were a bit open ended which I liked (8/10)

thermo (9th) : test was challenging although I mainly did the tech part. They used a syringe to take out the water so it dropped 10 degs before it got into my device. Timing was a bit confusing but otherwise device was well run (7/10)

sci tech bowl (2nd) : challenging test. included some abstract topics. i thought the biology sections was relatively easier than the rest. one of our teammates came in late although we still finished early. (9/10)

Re: Cornell Invitational (Division B and C)

Posted: February 17th, 2019, 8:41 pm
by ScottMaurer19
I believe those of you that didn’t like that we were asked for species are correct in that is wasn’t in the rules but (based on how our tests were graded) still gave credit to most questions if you have the lowest classification on the official list. There were some questions about species that I don’t think should’ve been on there but in general the ID ones still allowed for full credit if you answered based off the list

Re: Cornell Invitational (Division B and C)

Posted: February 17th, 2019, 9:12 pm
by isotelus
Fossils (7th):Test was great and fast-paced, with lots of real specimen, including a Batoid teeth, which was great. That's the upside, for us. After discussing with our other team, we had done pretty similarly throughout. However, after we got our tests back, grading wasn't done consistently and I don't think the key worked, because when comparing tests with our other team, grading was not consistent at all and we were not given credit for several questions that our other team was where they put the same thing. Proctors were nice tho, and the event was well run. (8.5/10 for test b/c stations weren't taped down and some teams in front of us took the stations, causing us to lose time)
Solar (12th): The actual on-topic part of the test was very, very simple and barely worth any points, and then it transitioned into stars and Cepheid variables (???), which were worth a ton of points. I'm pretty frustrated by this point as apart from UTA invite, solar tests of every tournament that we've been to have been off-rules. Only 30 points out of 100 points were based on on-topic parts, and I'm not satisfied with this test. (2/10)
Elastics (22th): As many others have said, the venue was terrible, though I don't blame the proctors. Our glider ended up crashing into pillars multiple times which ended the time very quick, thus resulting in a very low score. (4/10)

Re: Cornell Invitational (Division B and C)

Posted: February 17th, 2019, 9:45 pm
by builderguy135
isotelus wrote:Fossils (7th):Test was great and fast-paced, with lots of real specimen, including a Batoid teeth, which was great. That's the upside, for us. After discussing with our other team, we had done pretty similarly throughout. However, after we got our tests back, grading wasn't done consistently and I don't think the key worked, because when comparing tests with our other team, grading was not consistent at all and we were not given credit for several questions that our other team was where they put the same thing. Proctors were nice tho, and the event was well run. (8.5/10 for test b/c stations weren't taped down and some teams in front of us took the stations, causing us to lose time)
Solar (12th): The actual on-topic part of the test was very, very simple and barely worth any points, and then it transitioned into stars and Cepheid variables (???), which were worth a ton of points. I'm pretty frustrated by this point as apart from UTA invite, to solar tests of every tournament that we've been to have been off-rules. Only 30 points out of 100 points were based on on-topic parts, and I'm not satisfied with this test. (2/10)
Elastics (22th): As many others have said, the venue was terrible, though I don't blame the proctors. Our glider ended up crashing into pillars multiple times which ended the time very quick, thus resulting in a very low score. (4/10)
I hope Cornell fixes the glider venue for nats :(

Re: Cornell Invitational (Division B and C)

Posted: February 17th, 2019, 10:49 pm
by isotelus
builderguy135 wrote:
isotelus wrote:Fossils (7th):Test was great and fast-paced, with lots of real specimen, including a Batoid teeth, which was great. That's the upside, for us. After discussing with our other team, we had done pretty similarly throughout. However, after we got our tests back, grading wasn't done consistently and I don't think the key worked, because when comparing tests with our other team, grading was not consistent at all and we were not given credit for several questions that our other team was where they put the same thing. Proctors were nice tho, and the event was well run. (8.5/10 for test b/c stations weren't taped down and some teams in front of us took the stations, causing us to lose time)
Solar (12th): The actual on-topic part of the test was very, very simple and barely worth any points, and then it transitioned into stars and Cepheid variables (???), which were worth a ton of points. I'm pretty frustrated by this point as apart from UTA invite, to solar tests of every tournament that we've been to have been off-rules. Only 30 points out of 100 points were based on on-topic parts, and I'm not satisfied with this test. (2/10)
Elastics (22th): As many others have said, the venue was terrible, though I don't blame the proctors. Our glider ended up crashing into pillars multiple times which ended the time very quick, thus resulting in a very low score. (4/10)
I hope Cornell fixes the glider venue for nats :(
According to my coach, they have some old hangar or indoor track or something for nats. I'm not 100% sure, but I really hope that's the case.

Re: Cornell Invitational (Division B and C)

Posted: February 18th, 2019, 4:22 am
by Rossyspsce
isotelus wrote:
builderguy135 wrote:
isotelus wrote:Fossils (7th):Test was great and fast-paced, with lots of real specimen, including a Batoid teeth, which was great. That's the upside, for us. After discussing with our other team, we had done pretty similarly throughout. However, after we got our tests back, grading wasn't done consistently and I don't think the key worked, because when comparing tests with our other team, grading was not consistent at all and we were not given credit for several questions that our other team was where they put the same thing. Proctors were nice tho, and the event was well run. (8.5/10 for test b/c stations weren't taped down and some teams in front of us took the stations, causing us to lose time)
Solar (12th): The actual on-topic part of the test was very, very simple and barely worth any points, and then it transitioned into stars and Cepheid variables (???), which were worth a ton of points. I'm pretty frustrated by this point as apart from UTA invite, to solar tests of every tournament that we've been to have been off-rules. Only 30 points out of 100 points were based on on-topic parts, and I'm not satisfied with this test. (2/10)
Elastics (22th): As many others have said, the venue was terrible, though I don't blame the proctors. Our glider ended up crashing into pillars multiple times which ended the time very quick, thus resulting in a very low score. (4/10)
I hope Cornell fixes the glider venue for nats :(
According to my coach, they have some old hangar or indoor track or something for nats. I'm not 100% sure, but I really hope that's the case.
To my know knowledge it was supposed to be the indoor track with ~90 foot ceiling but may be changed in order to keep the tournament more on time due to preflight and flight period for teams in any hour is more than the allotted time in any hour

Re: Cornell Invitational (Division B and C)

Posted: February 18th, 2019, 5:05 am
by nicholasmaurer
Rossyspsce wrote:
isotelus wrote:
builderguy135 wrote:
I hope Cornell fixes the glider venue for nats :(
According to my coach, they have some old hangar or indoor track or something for nats. I'm not 100% sure, but I really hope that's the case.
To my know knowledge it was supposed to be the indoor track with ~90 foot ceiling but may be changed in order to keep the tournament more on time due to preflight and flight period for teams in any hour is more than the allotted time in any hour
The field house (which is indeed an old hanger) will NOT be an event venue at the National Tournament. Opening Ceremonies and Awards will be held there.

Re: Cornell Invitational (Division B and C)

Posted: February 18th, 2019, 5:56 am
by dragonfruit35
ScottMaurer19 wrote:I believe those of you that didn’t like that we were asked for species are correct in that is wasn’t in the rules but (based on how our tests were graded) still gave credit to most questions if you have the lowest classification on the official list. There were some questions about species that I don’t think should’ve been on there but in general the ID ones still allowed for full credit if you answered based off the list
Huh, on our test it looked like we were given half credit every time we answered with the most specific classification on our list if it was was less specific than what they were asking for.

Re: Cornell Invitational (Division B and C)

Posted: February 18th, 2019, 7:44 am
by coachchuckaahs
Sounds like they need better venues at Nationals for both ELG and WS. I would agree the 80' ceiling would be a logistical challenge (time-wise). But having such obstacles (pillars, chairs, tables, uncontrolled doors etc.) does not make this a science event. I hope they are able to locate a small student gym or some such on campus before Nationals! I also hope they provide room dimensions well prior to Nationals. For these events, especially ELG, the height of the room is important to preparation. A high ceiling may even mean a completely different glider design.

I was hoping this invite would be a clear indicator of facilities for Nationals, but now I am hoping not.

Coach Chuck