Page 8 of 14

Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020

Posted: January 25th, 2020, 6:00 pm
by Tailsfan101
Tentative results from the live spreadsheet:

1. Troy High School (135)
2. Seven Lakes High School (161)
3. West Windsor-Plainsboro High School North (241)
4. Boca Raton Community High School (268)
5. William G. Enloe High School (275)
6. Liberal Arts and Science Academy (320)
7. West Windsor-Plainsboro High School South (322)
8. Mason High School (328)
9. New Trier High School (342)
10. William P. Clements High School (360)

Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020

Posted: January 25th, 2020, 6:02 pm
by MacintoshJosh
Seven Lakes looking strong! Wonder if they can take down Troy this year.

Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020

Posted: January 25th, 2020, 6:09 pm
by PM2017
MacintoshJosh wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 6:02 pm
Seven Lakes looking strong! Wonder if they can take down Troy this year.
That was insanely strong. In my memory, this is the closest a team has been to Troy since 2016 (and even then, iirc I think some unforeseen issues happened to Troy at nats, dropping them to 4th)

Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020

Posted: January 25th, 2020, 6:24 pm
by CrayolaCrayon

Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020

Posted: January 25th, 2020, 6:47 pm
by sciolyperson1

Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020

Posted: January 25th, 2020, 7:56 pm
by Unome
poonicle wrote:
January 25th, 2020, 4:10 pm
GUYS MY GEOMAPPING IDOL WAS THE ES!!!!! everyone from my school was fangirling/fanboying over him
hi

Regarding Troy/7L, there was a similar situation in 2017 at MIT. That was also the year 7L didn't qualify for Nationals.

Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020

Posted: January 25th, 2020, 10:43 pm
by Name
not gonna get tests back for like another month or so, ig i'll just post reviews/thoughts now?

Astro (10): The multiple choice section was very easy (which is prob a good thing to separate teams), as the short response varied from semi impossible to impossible to what did this question even just say? But considering this is MIT and the test writers, that's what was expected. And as a bonus they even did some js9 questions! I think I would've liked a few "intermediate" questions instead of really easy or really hard questions. Also for the ID this DSO it probably would've been better to just give letter of picture instead of making that also mult choice. This should be an interesting test to figure out whenever I get the key. (10/10)

Code (1): !!! I think we full scored the test (assuming we didn't lose points to errors) and around a 3 min time bonus. The test def could've been longer- we were not the only team to finish completely, thus making placements due to time bonus. And the time bonus was super wack, the "red wheelbarrow" poem or something (def not a standard timed). We struggled a bit getting a start on it, but it appears everyone else did as well. The second main problem is the first morbit. They did give you 6 letter mappings but as a sound recording in morse, which I did not comprehend (very creative but is that legal to test?). In the end it didn't matter though, the morbit was surprisingly solveable w/o any hint digits. I will say it was a surreal experience taking this test. (8/10)

Fossils (9): !!! I honestly expected to bomb like usual, but didn't. The test wasn't as hard as I would've expect from MIT. Some stations were actually very easy when I could answer everything with confidence way before time was up, and others was more like ??? The multiple choice packet was really fun actually with the time given just enough for us to finish. The room was also set up really nicely to help us move around quickly and without confusion. (10/10)

Overall (12 :o ): I kinda wish there was more time to explore the campus or meetup with people or whatever but we basically just left immediately after last session ended. But an opportunity to come back here and compete for the third time was pretty awesome. All of my events were on time and ran quite smoothly, and the quality and difficulty of the tests are unparalleled. (10/10)

I'm still shocked at how well we did. NY states should be very competitive this year.

Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020

Posted: January 26th, 2020, 7:31 am
by IvySpear
Y'all SLEEPING on Enloe.

By the way, congrats to Syosset for first in Code. 3 minutes on that timed question is really impressive indeed. Funny how Duke was more competitive code-wise than MIT though.

Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020

Posted: January 26th, 2020, 7:53 am
by LiteralRhinoceros
Picture This (1): terms were kinda basic, would've loved to have seen a list more like last year. my lack of bio knowledge got exposed here tho

Dynamic (3): nice test. it wasn't a super long test, but was still a time crunch. it tested the concepts well, and all in all was run well.

Geomapping (13): why was this event held in a lecture hall? Considering there was actual mapping and etc to so on the test, having such a small area to work in was really hindering. As for the test, I did enjoy the emphasis on mapping. Unome's geomapping tests always do that, but there was also a lack of conceptual testing. There was 1 section out of 5+ dealing with conceptual earth science, while the event sheet mandates more weight to that. One last thing. What was with not being able to separate the test or image sheets? Dealing with the problems with the test taking environment was probably harder than the test.

Astronomy (20): we didn't expect anything from this event except a crazy hard test, and it delivered. The use of js9 was exceptional, and the rest of the test really made me think, instead of Wikipedia bashing.

LMMM (13): originally builderguy135 and sciolyperson1 were gonna do this, but WS was running late, so I did the picture this test then went over to the room. The test was really well done. The stations were a good length, and the memes tested weren't easy. Hope to see this at nats next year.

Overall (3): this invy was a really fun experience. the water bottles were the highlight though. The test quality was great, and the logistics of the invy had no hiccups.

edit: formatting

Re: Science Olympiad at MIT Invitational 2020

Posted: January 26th, 2020, 8:16 am
by DontWorryAboutIt
LiteralRhinoceros wrote:
January 26th, 2020, 7:53 am
Geomapping (13): why was this event held in a lecture hall? Considering there was actual mapping and etc to so on the test, having such a small area to work in was really hindering. As for the test, I did enjoy the emphasis on mapping. Unome's geomapping tests always do that, but there was also a lack of conceptual testing. There was 1 section out of 5+ dealing with conceptual earth science, while the event sheet mandates more weight to that. One last thing. What was with not being able to separate the test or image sheets? Dealing with the problems with the test taking environment was probably harder than the test.
Wait, so the supervisor is Unome?