Duke University Invitationals 2020!

Area to advertise for your competitions!
Locked
dukescioly
Member
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: June 21st, 2018, 8:31 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 11 times

Duke University Invitationals 2020!

Post by dukescioly »

We are super excited to announce that Duke University Science Olympiad will be hosting the second annual Duke Invitationals on January 18th, 2020! Registration will open 12:00 AM ET on Tuesday, October 1st, 2019! More information + updates can be found on our new website at https://dukescioly.org.

The tournament will run all 23 Division C national events with the possibility of running a few trial events. Tests will be written by experienced alumni at Duke and former Science Olympiad competitors from the highest level of competition! Coaches will not be required to write tests, bring supplies, or volunteer.

Any team can register up to 2 teams and registration is on a first-come first-serve basis. We are looking to take between 30-40 (we had 30 teams last year and are looking to take in more!) teams this year and subsequent teams to register will receive a spot on the waitlist in chronological order. Any team that registered two teams already will be able to put a third team on the waitlist! There is a registration fee of $100, with $50 for each additional team. We are working on obtaining discounts for hotels and lodging near Duke University’s campus. We are also willing to help teams that need financial aid or planning to come to our tournament!

While not rushing to events or doing some last minute studying, competitors can explore Duke Gardens, the Nasher Art Museum, and grab food at the award-winning West Union! We also have tour guides on our team so we will be running tours so competitors get to experience Duke’s beautiful and lively campus (rumor also has it that our awards ceremony might be in the Duke chapel).

Last year was our first year and it went fairly successfully, but we promise to make this year an even better experience for all - from improving tests, timing, logistics(making the schedule more like nationals!), and a variety of other things!

We hope to see you at our tournament in January! If you have any questions, please feel free to email us at [email protected] or [email protected].
fizzest
Member
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: February 8th, 2019, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Duke University Invitationals 2020!

Post by fizzest »

Some post reflections:

I'm from Langley A. Overall, I think although the tests were really well made and had thought put into it in most of the events, there were some issues with how situations were handled in some events, which I personally had problems with.

Chemistry Lab: The test was much easier than I expected, and I was slightly disappointed to see some of the questions from last year reused word for word. The fact that the three free responses were reused was kind of a shame, and I did not expect this at all. Also, the fact that the lab had to be done together as a partner (which isn't even an official rule and really ruined our flow) and we did not have sinks near us or any proper lab stations was very disappointing (The event coordinator had to ASK an administrator if we were allowed to use the sink at the back of the room, like what). Not to mention, my team specifically did not receive the pH meters that was a crucial portion of the lab while other school teams did, although we did have alternatives such as pH paper that made it possible.

Forensics: Forensics was, literally, a hot mess. First, the event was delayed by 20 minutes for a dumb reason (I think it was the administration that did something wrong? I'm not sure.) and we had to wait for a very long time. We were given a ton of samples (14 powders, 6 plastics, lots of hair, etc.) and 45 minutes instead of 50 minutes because of a mistake that we didn't make. We were also given a butane burner instead of normal bunsen burners which vaporized all of our powders, not to mention was shared by 6 teams. The event coordinator did not give me a piece of tape when I asked for it, although I guess technically they don't have to (I'm just salty :^)). Out of the fourteen powders that we received in the zip-lock bag (which by the way, please use smaller bags as not only is it a waste of plastic, but also powders tend to stick to these bags and with larger surface area, we can't actually use the powder.) five of the powders were unusable for analysis, because it seemed like they contained less than 0.25 grams and it all spread on the bag. Two of the powders were given in crystalline form, and had to be crushed in order to do anything other than visually determining what the "powder" was. Honestly, I'm super disappointed in how this event was handled, because in theory, this test was really well made, but oh well.

Water Quality: WQ was probably the only test that I personally didn't have a problem with. I was ten minutes late because of forensics, and the event coordinators were nice enough to give me extra time. The test was really well made and handled, and although we didn't medal, props to whoever made that test because it was one of the best WQ tests that I've taken this season.

That's about it.. I know this sounds like more of a rant more than a reflection, and although I have some emotions mixed into my reflection, I thank you for taking your time reading this.
User avatar
Name
Member
Member
Posts: 434
Joined: January 21st, 2018, 4:41 pm
Division: C
State: NY
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 46 times

Re: Duke University Invitationals 2020!

Post by Name »

To be honest idk why we came all the way down from Long Island to Duke when it's just local NC teams and a couple of VA teams but here's some thoughts:

Astro (2): The test was a mix of pretty good questions and really bad questions. Like there were definitely solid questions on there, yet they asked for the mass of the sun in solar masses as the first question. I underestimated the test and took my time- only to be forced to do over 2 pages of it in like a min or so, so honestly I'm surprised we even got 2nd. The grading though was more questionable. I lost points on things that i was like 99% sure i got right. I'll have to take a look at the keys when they come out (8.5/10)

Code (2): With NCSSM coming and our fastest aristo solver not coming I didn't expect to win, but we turned in a solid performance with 16/18 q solved and a 1:30 time bonus (missing a rsa that nobody got and a cancerous looking 100 pt pollux). I heard that NCSSM solved 17/18, missing the RSA but had a solve a bit over 2 min (2:06?). But turned out we made 3 errors on a aristo with error (apparently the "syght of the stars" not "light of the stars" were 2 of them" which caused us to lose by 56 points if I calculated correctly. The test itself was decent (18 q might be still a bit short), the only real issue was the RSA using 6 digit numbers. (9.5/10)
Fossils (?): I'm quite disappointed that I STILL can't medal this event. The test was 18 stations, 10 q per, 2:30 each. The answer sheet was just number 1-10 on a paper, while the question were numbered kinda weirdly and i had problems writing in the wrong spot. They had a few real specimen, but instead of labeling the specimen, they placed the specimen on a label- and it prob would've been easy to switch around accidentally. Also the laggerstatens tested ones not on the rules... I got almost all the IDs, and the ones I missed were ones that were pretty obvious and I was pretty sure I got (like I know what a rafinesquina looks like), and there were a couple of things which I want to know what the key said because I was pretty sure I was right. (7/10)

overall just from my events I felt like I had some decently written tests but like nothing super exceptional. I know some events had super hard tests (circuits) while some events were more questionable (flying ws in a classroom). It definitely was a solidly run invitational despite small problems here and there, especially considering it's only the second year this has existed. (9/10)
South Woods MS, Syosset HS '21
BirdSO TD/ES
Past Events: Microbe, Invasive, Matsci, Fermi, Astro, Code, Fossils
1st place MIT Codebusters 2019-2020
1st place NYS Fermi Questions (2019), Astronomy and Codebusters (2021)
Science Olympiad Founder's Scholarship winner
Piisgood164
Member
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: January 14th, 2019, 8:20 pm
Division: Grad
State: MA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Duke University Invitationals 2020!

Post by Piisgood164 »

Hi, Forensics supervisor here to offer some behind the scenes insights for what was definitely a hectic event:

fizzest wrote: January 18th, 2020, 9:29 pm First, the event was delayed by 20 minutes for a dumb reason (I think it was the administration that did something wrong? I'm not sure.) and we had to wait for a very long time.

The reason for this delay wasn't necessarily for a dumb reason but rather for the legitimate issue that half of the teams were locked out of a competition room. Due to sizing issues, Forensics had to be run in two separate rooms in order to accommodate all teams. Duke was supposed to give us access to all of these labs and leave them unlocked; this was not the case as for the entire day the doors were locked and had to be propped open by whatever we had on hand and wasn't being used (usually a chair). At the beginning of the first timeslot of Forensics after we'd allowed half of the teams into the first room (yourself included), the chair holding the other door open slipped and caused us to get locked out of the room. The 20 minute delay in starting was in order to wait for a security guard to unlock that door for us so the other competitors could be allowed to unpack and prepare to compete in the interest of fairness for all teams.

fizzest wrote: January 18th, 2020, 9:29 pm We were given a ton of samples (14 powders, 6 plastics, lots of hair, etc.) and 45 minutes instead of 50 minutes because of a mistake that we didn't make.

The amount of samples given (14 powders, 6 plastics, 6 hairs, 5, fibers to be precise) is within the scope of the allowed number of samples by nationals rules. As for the reduction in time, this was a regrettable consequence of the timing of the event; in order to avoid dragging all timeslots (and grading as a result) far later and lead to a delay in the awards ceremony and keep people on campus late, reducing the amount of time all teams got by 5 minutes was the best compromise to allow all to get as much as they could out of the test but also keep everything moving. This was by no means ideal but this was the consequence of something that was out of my hands as well and was at least consistent across all timeslots. If I am being perfectly honest however, I don't think the loss of 5 minutes, however annoying, would've had a fundamentally massive impact on any given team's performance. Through my personal experience in Forensics, all time is valuable, but usually by the last 5 minutes, there isn't any sample identification left over and I'm simply working on supplemental questions and cleaning up. While this is not a universal sentiment by any stretch of the imagination, there is relatively little you can fully complete in 5 minutes that you wouldn't have been able to complete already if you are able to manage your time sufficiently well. I wouldn't have wanted this as a competitor and understand your irritation, but this was certainly the best option possible and shouldn't have made a massive impact in performance.

fizzest wrote: January 18th, 2020, 9:29 pm We were also given a butane burner instead of normal bunsen burners which vaporized all of our powders, not to mention was shared by 6 teams.

Again, this is an issue with the Duke facilities due to the fact that there are no gas lines in place, making bunsen burners an impossibility. As such, we have to resort to alternative flame test methods. From my understanding, DUSO used alcohol burners last year which are too weak to actually produce an accurate flame test. While butane burners are certainly powerful, I am of the opinion that it is possible to adapt better to them than to alcohol burners and still perform flame tests by holding your flame testing apparatus on the edge of the flame rather than directly in it.

fizzest wrote: January 18th, 2020, 9:29 pm The event coordinator did not give me a piece of tape when I asked for it, although I guess technically they don't have to (I'm just salty :^)).

As a policy, I don't provide chromatography equipment outside of the pens; no particular reason other than the need for additional materials, but there are certainly ways to adapt without certain materials as some teams did using test tubes to hold their chromatography strips.

fizzest wrote: January 18th, 2020, 9:29 pm Out of the fourteen powders that we received in the zip-lock bag (which by the way, please use smaller bags as not only is it a waste of plastic, but also powders tend to stick to these bags and with larger surface area, we can't actually use the powder.) five of the powders were unusable for analysis, because it seemed like they contained less than 0.25 grams and it all spread on the bag. Two of the powders were given in crystalline form, and had to be crushed in order to do anything other than visually determining what the "powder" was.

I am well aware of the existence of smaller ziplock bags, which are my usual modus operandi. The sandwich bags were a last minute adaptation in material setup due to a logistical mistake that led to us having not enough small 2x2 ziplock bags for all teams. As for your concerns about insufficient powders, I don't usually provide much powder for analysis. It is both possible to perform all analyses with about that much powder if you are efficient in your use of your material and in a real crime scene, you'd be lucky to receive about that much material in the first place. That being said, I should have accounted for the larger bags and added more powder to each bag; mea culpa. As for the crystalline powders, this was a personal experiment to see if competitors would be able to still ID powders in more unfamiliar forms. Strictly speaking, I am not required to provide powders for analysis but I understand your frustration; as a competitor I would have certainly been annoyed to receive powders in such a form but again, it is not an insurmountable obstacle as you yourself suggested through crushing the powders.

All this being said, I appreciate the feedback and hope that this explanation gives some insights into why certain things were the way they were on the day of competition; things weren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination but both DUSO and I will be working to ensure that Forensics goes smoother next year. I'd be happy to address any additional questions and concerns you have in private.
fizzest
Member
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: February 8th, 2019, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Duke University Invitationals 2020!

Post by fizzest »

Hello! I know this should be private, but I wanted to discuss about some of the things you said and see if other competitors have different opinions than me.

First of all, I would like to like to really thank you for taking your time to listen to my suggestions (and rant). It makes me happy that Duke is at least willing to listen to suggestions, and it makes me happy to go back to Duke next year.

So, I think one of my biggest concerns I still have is probably the flame tests and the time management.
If I am being perfectly honest however, I don't think the loss of 5 minutes, however annoying, would've had a fundamentally massive impact on any given team's performance. Through my personal experience in Forensics, all time is valuable, but usually by the last 5 minutes, there isn't any sample identification left over and I'm simply working on supplemental questions and cleaning up. While this is not a universal sentiment by any stretch of the imagination, there is relatively little you can fully complete in 5 minutes that you wouldn't have been able to complete already if you are able to manage your time sufficiently well.
I totally agree that the extra 5 minutes wouldn't have been a huge help in the analysis part, and considering that all the teams that participated got the same time, this was fair. However, with the amount of powders and these "tests" we've gotten (crystalline solid form, large surface area bags (honestly I don't know how you can manage to use so little on analysis but I'm very impressed), and of course, the vaporizing butane torch), it seems unrealistic to me that this test could have been completed within 45 minutes, as the last 10 minutes tends to be the analysis section (which is worth the most points on the test). I realize that this was for the greater good, and it wasn't your intention (obviously), so I don't really mind, but also considering that since something similar to this happened last year, this really shouldn't be happening again next year.
Again, this is an issue with the Duke facilities due to the fact that there are no gas lines in place, making bunsen burners an impossibility. As such, we have to resort to alternative flame test methods. From my understanding, DUSO used alcohol burners last year which are too weak to actually produce an accurate flame test. While butane burners are certainly powerful, I am of the opinion that it is possible to adapt better to them than to alcohol burners and still perform flame tests by holding your flame testing apparatus on the edge of the flame rather than directly in it.
I agree with this decision, but I feel like butane torches were an even worse replacement of alcohol burners. Since they burn at around 1500 degree Celcius, which is way above the temperature to vaporize all of the powders, it still seems unresonable to me that even trying to test them on the edge would be any help. I've actually tried this before during the test, and it didn't work for me, although I can't say the same about other competitors since most of them didn't even try.

In general, it would be VERY helpful if you would announce these particular things before the events. I don't know about other competitors but my analysis plan was heavily based on flame tests, and I had no idea that 6 teams would be sharing one butane burner that would vaporize my powders. I think this goes with Duke Invitational in general; we were not even aware that Duke was using national rules until Thursday before the invitational, and we were not aware that chem lab would require two people to do the lab. I don't know if that was our school thing, but it wasn't in the coaches' packet.

Anyways, thank you so much! This will be my last response because I have really addressed everything I wanted to. I hope for a better invitational next year, as I could tell a enormous amount of effort went into running this event.
User avatar
winchesetr
Member
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: May 6th, 2014, 7:28 am
Division: Grad
State: PA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Duke University Invitationals 2020!

Post by winchesetr »

Hey everyone! Disease supervisor here - just want to say thank you to all the teams who competed for a fun invitational. I will hopefully be uploading the exam and key to the test exchange and maybe posting some analytics of the exam here. I am also one of the test writers for SOUP, so if any team would like that Disease exam after Feb. 22nd, just email me and I can provide you it. If you want any of my other exams (DUSO last year, SOUP 2018 and SOUP 2019) you can also reach out.
I like soup.

Harriton High School Class of 2017


SOUP Disease Detectives 2018-Present
DUSO Disease Detectives 2019-Present
User avatar
gz839918
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 237
Joined: April 27th, 2019, 6:40 pm
Division: Grad
State: WI
Pronouns: Ask My Pronouns
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 373 times
Contact:

Re: Duke University Invitationals 2020!

Post by gz839918 »

Hey folks, hope you all enjoyed the Duke University invitational! I supervised sounds of music, and I'd be more than happy if anybody who competed could rate my tests. My vision is to craft tests where you can learn something simply by taking it, and I'd be grateful for your feedback, which is a vital part of the process. If you also spot any errors in my tests, feel free to drop me a note on the feedback form!

Additionally, I've rescored sounds of music due to an earlier scoring error. A volunteer incorrectly entered negative pitch scores into the sounds of music scoresheet. Because zero cents off is a perfect score, negative scores were essentially better than perfect, and I didn't realize so many teams received perfect individual pitch scores until I had left Duke. Everybody who got a medal would still get a medal after the rescore (no, you don't have to mail us back your medals or anything), though places 2-4 were switched around. I apologize for not catching this scoring error, especially considering how hard you all work for your scores. The correct scores are on Avogadro. I believe scores for WIDI have also been corrected.

Two teams got a perfect pitch score (36 points) even after recalculation, so your new raw scores can be found by LS + IPS total + SS + (0.789474)(TS) + Bonus.

Congratulations to everybody attending, and it's an honor to work with so many fantastic students and teams. A huge shoutout to the DUSO Executive Board and Planning Committee for turning this awesome tournament into a reality!
I ❤ sounds of music! About meRate my tests

Carmel High School ’19
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ’23
“People overestimate what they can do in a day, and underestimate what they can do in a lifetime.” –Unknown
User avatar
daydreamer0023
Member
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: January 29th, 2015, 5:44 pm
Division: Grad
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Duke University Invitationals 2020!

Post by daydreamer0023 »

Hello, Circuit Lab event supervisor here!

Kind of belated, but just wanted to say thank you for the wonderful experience last weekend - I've had a blast and wouldn't mind returning. To the competitors out there who partook in the test, thank you for bearing with my first time being an ES and the mishaps that went with it. The test was hard, but you all did well, and I really hope that it becomes a good study resource for you all! As a tip for doing well in future competitions, practice, practice, practice, not just the theoretical, but also working with physical components. Performance on the lab can very much make or break a team's score. As a side note, I used the lab score as a secondary tiebreaker for several teams.

The exam test and key (updated with a couple of minor fixes) are going to be uploaded to the scioly.org test exchange, if they haven't been already. I'm also planning to attach a website to my signature and upload them there as well (assuming I get the motivation to do so), along with some general score distribution graphs.

If you have any questions, concerns, complaints or anything else, feel free to shoot me a PM! Seriously, I promise I don't bite and I really do appreciate honest feedback. :) I also wrote material for other invites, such as MIT, and can also give clarification about that as well.
"I am among those who think that science has great beauty. A scientist in his laboratory is not only a technician: he is also a child placed before natural phenomena which impress him like a fairy tale." - Marie Curie

Enloe '19 || UNC Chapel Hill '23

See resources I helped create here!
svph300
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: September 18th, 2016, 8:03 pm
Division: Grad
State: FL
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Duke University Invitationals 2020!

Post by svph300 »

Hey everyone!

I wrote the Anatomy and Physiology C Exam for DUSO this year. I uploaded the exam, keys and answer sheet in the Test Exchange, so hopefully it will be up soon for everyone to use. If you'd like an electronic copy of the files, feel free to email me at [email protected]. Good luck to everyone with the rest of the season!
User avatar
LiuYC
Member
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: December 15th, 2018, 5:21 pm
Division: C
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Duke University Invitationals 2020!

Post by LiuYC »

Does anyone know what PDB file was explored in the computer exploration section of the Protein Modeling test?
Montgomery High School Captain '20

2020 Events: Cornell / Regionals / Yale / Princeton / UPenn / States
Chemistry Lab: 4 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 5 / 1
Wright Stuff: 6 / - / - / 4 / 21 / 4
Protein Modeling: 14 / 9 / 4 / 16 / 20 / 7
Forensics: 19 / - / 1 / - / - / -
Locked

Return to “2020 Invitationals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests