2022 National Tournament: California Institute of Technology

User avatar
mnoga
Member
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: March 19th, 2015, 6:12 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: 2022 National Tournament: California Institute of Technology

Post by mnoga »

2022 Division B Results:

1. Sierra Vista (78)
2. Kennedy (88)
3. Beckendorff (220)
4. Solon (232)
5. Longfellow (276)
6. Daniel Wright (302)
7. Timberline (314)
8. Springhouse (315)
9. Fulton Science Academy (380)
10. Slauson (409)
These users thanked the author mnoga for the post:
drcubbin (May 19th, 2022, 12:31 pm)
SOPomo
Member
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: March 7th, 2016, 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: 2022 National Tournament: California Institute of Technology

Post by SOPomo »

Congrats California, within 3 and 8 of 1st in C and 1-2 by a mile in B. Way to go Sierra Vista!
These users thanked the author SOPomo for the post:
drcubbin (May 19th, 2022, 12:31 pm)
aakoala
Member
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: April 1st, 2021, 3:00 pm
Division: C
State: MI
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 11 times
Contact:

Re: 2022 National Tournament: California Institute of Technology

Post by aakoala »

Botany B (7th)

(101 questions) Kinda dropped into this event the week before because my partner wanted moral support :D Overall I thought it was pretty good, but my partner noticed that a very large amount of the questions are the test were copied directly from the SONI test, which obviously makes it unfair for people who have taken that test. There was also quite a large number of identification questions which I'm not sure is the best way to assess knowledge. Kinda bummed about just missing a medal, but someone has to be the one! 4/10

Bridge B (13th)

Not really much to say about this. The event was really well run; the event supervisors were really organized, knew what they were doing, and made sure us competitors knew what we were doing too. Really great job, especially over the satellite format. 10/10

Crave the WAve (9th)

Honestly just no.
For people wondering, this test had 83 questions, the majority of which were extremely easy. For example, label the EM spectrum, identify types of waves, identify wave phenomena; all stuff that are on the rules (yay!) but are way too simple of questions to differentiate top teams. A very tiny mistake could probably drop you a couple places. I have little doubt that the top 10-15 places were very close together score-wise. This is not to say the winning teams didn't deserve it; they did! I'm just trying to express how dissapointing this test was, especially coming from the national tournament. It was also quite disappointing to only see one question regarding boundary effects (a specifically national topic): identifying a breaking wave. 1/10

Crime Busters (12th)

(83 questions as well) Great test, nothing significant about it that made it stand out. Kudos to Daniel Wright for being so gosh darn consistent at winning this event though! 10/10

Dynamic Planet (5th)

(44 questions) Big yikes, pretty sure many people agree with this statement. The types of questions that were on this test seemed to stretch the rules quite a bit. For example, I recall one question asking how a waterfall formed solely based off of a picture with a broken bridge? If the writer was trying to connect that to dams, I don't understand why they chose that sort of question. Additionally, I don't remember seeing many (if not any) questions regarding drainage systems, channel types, groundwater, karst features, lakes, wetlands, effects of land-use, pollution, or critical zone hydrology. (all of which are very clearly outlined on the rules). My memory might be lacking, but the point remains. 0/10

Meteorology (3rd)

(74 questions) Again, kind of a yikes test. I took the latter half, which I felt also stretched the rules quite a bit. The rules manual states that participants should use "climatological data, graphs, charts, and images" to "demonstrate an understanding of ... climate." If I recall correctly, less than a quarter of the questions on this test used these types of data, and the ones that did were written poorly and confusingly. 2/10

Overall (10th)

Despite the fact that some of the tests weren't the highest of quality, I still want to thank everyone who helped create this year's national tournament so great. From the amazing website and coordination to the extremely cute swag bags and awards ceremony, the whole experience was very memorable, despite the online format and not being able to travel to California. I really appreciate how much everyone has done to promote science education throughout the country. 20/10

Thank you so much!
aakoala
Userpage
22-23 Events:
Cell Biology
Dynamic Planet
Forensics
Remote Sensing
GeicoAds
Member
Member
Posts: 1
Joined: November 19th, 2020, 2:51 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 0

Re: 2022 National Tournament: California Institute of Technology

Post by GeicoAds »

Environmental Chemistry (2nd)

See theRealiC’s review.

This test in no way required more chemistry than chemistry honors(0 envirochem knowledge required), and unfairly benefited people who were able to buy Ti-36X Pros.

0/10

Forensics (2nd)

The second(or third) worst test I’ve ever taken, not sure if SONI Envirochem was worse. It would’ve been a fine test to take in person, but the low video and image quality made it a real pain to take.

Many of the labs weren’t even properly performed:
Powders were not mixed for solubility/pH tests, also it was basically impossible to tell if a powder had dissolved because the well plates were also white
A very large amount of benedict’s was added during one of the tests, and the color of the tube at first wasn’t visible in the video (for NH4Cl)
The chromatography was run quite badly, either they were all run too long, or with improper solvent? Most had Rfs near 1 or near 0.
Density test photos were taken from a bird-eye view and were horrible quality so it was extremely unclear if the plastic samples were floating or not
Plastic burn videos were poorer done as all of them except for one plastic had the exact same video and the flame color was mostly unclear due to the incorrect positioning of the nichrome wire in the bunsen burner flame
Soil ID was only based on videos of someone rubbing soil? Interesting choice

Videos seem to have been reused from SONI and last year’s nationals! Powders were worth a large portion of the test, so even SONI’s excuse of the trivia being repeated due to it being a small portion of the test doesn’t work. (Not a valid reason regardless)

Video quality was very low
Videos were reused in between the test, multiple of the 14 powders had the exact same video

With the 14 powder videos + the numerous images, the test didn’t load well, and answers between partners didn’t show up saved at first.

Overall, the quality of the test was unreasonably low, considering the feedback given after SONI and the fact that many great forensics test writers were assistants/likely able to help.

On the bright side, no trivia questions were directly copied from other past tests. However, there were also very few general knowledge questions, so given that most points were based on the scuffed ID this test was very poorly written.

1/10

IAT (2nd)


Well written test, build went smoothly, no problems here. Thanks for the carry.

8/10

Chem Lab (4th)

See theRealiC’s feedback.

7/10

Detector Building (4th)

I very much dislike the build. The rules seem to require a linearized equation built off of a dc voltage divider, which is very restrictive, because the best design seems to require AC. Building and calibrating the build was pretty much endless pain,

The test was pretty good, the length was just right for a 30 minute test, although it would’ve been nice if a few more advanced topics were included.

7/10

Overall (2nd)

I enjoyed this tournament much more than last year’s nationals. Many of my teammates said that they felt that test quality was higher this year, but I don’t feel the same way, probably because I do the chemistry events.

In general, I feel like the chemistry events and detector building have some inherent flaws.

Forensics:
The rules never change, topics never change, the event gets really boring
Suggestions
Maybe some powders could be switched out? For example borax could replace boric acid (or another powder)
Fibers, Plastics switched out for others
Mass Spec could be swapped out for IR or NMR
Dusting fingerprints as a lab section would be pretty cool

Environmental Chemistry:
The rules did not work well with a season that was planned to be online.
Literally the only things that are allowed to be tested are unit conversions and the manuals
If strictly followed, they lead to a test similar to SONI or Nationals
Why are programmable calculators banned?
All that said, I look forward to this event in person next year

Chemistry Lab:
My views of this event are pretty much the same as Fizzest’s: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16hv ... sp=sharing
The event topics are pretty much impossible to stick to, and every single invitational and test written doesn’t, so why are the rules being kept like this?
The content is really simple, for example: converting between concentration units is a state and national topic only. Really?
Suggestions:
Maybe make the event geared towards one topic each year such as battery chemistry. Studying for this event might require baseline AP Chem knowledge, and then participants would study different electrolytes, electrodes, factors that increase cell life, methods of monitoring battery health, etc.

Detector Building
Less restrictions on the build maybe? No requirement for a linearized graph, 10 data points, etc.
This would make grading much harder though, not really sure how it could be improved
Avoid temp sensor type stuff, more conductivity probe type stuff, where fully build our own probe
I’ve heard stories of teams all buying the same linear temperature sensor (or whatever it was called), and calibrating in the same way
User avatar
IHateClouds
Member
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: February 1st, 2019, 3:58 pm
Division: C
State: PA
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: 2022 National Tournament: California Institute of Technology

Post by IHateClouds »

Event Reviews

Dynamic Planet (4th)
I really enjoyed this test! It was quite a rush, but I loved the focus on interpretation problems and using principles of hydrology to explain phenomena! It's definitely up there with MIT tests :) I really loved the formatting of a multiple choice question followed by explaining, so the problem was somewhat scaffolded if you had no idea what to do. but i am the taddest bit salty about that meteor lake...XD
10/10

Remote Sensing (5th)
I felt like this was very similar to the SONI test (although, definitely better) which I was not a particular fan of. Both focus exclusively on math and false color image interpretation, which I feel is an extremely narrow view of what remote sensing is. There is way too high of an emphasis on picking out features in uncommon band combinations. That said, it wasn't a bad test, but I would have preferred more breadth, although I did enjoy the interpretation and explanation questions.
7/10

Rocks and Minerals 4th
I was a little disappointed by how easy this test was, and with my partner we finished in 35 minutes (and checked our work for another 15, but this was mainly just binder stuff). It didn't feel too interesting or exciting to take. It wasn't a bad test, just a little bland and easy. However, the event supervisor was very nice when I had questions!
5/10

Overall (19th)
I will say that test quality felt way better than last year, so even if all the tests weren't MIT-standard, they were still very fun and I enjoyed the tournament as a whole! :)
These users thanked the author IHateClouds for the post:
EwwPhysics (May 21st, 2022, 7:18 am)
SONica
Member
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: April 23rd, 2019, 4:41 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: 2022 National Tournament: California Institute of Technology

Post by SONica »

SOPomo wrote: May 18th, 2022, 9:31 pm Congrats California, within 3 and 8 of 1st in C and 1-2 by a mile in B. Way to go Sierra Vista!
What have changed in Sierra Vista? Impressive!
imcookiemonster
Member
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: February 11th, 2021, 2:31 pm
Division: B
State: MD
Pronouns: They/Them/Theirs
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: 2022 National Tournament: California Institute of Technology

Post by imcookiemonster »

(ooh first forum post)

Green Generation B (24th)
I didn't have any strong opinions on this test. It was decent and relied on in depth knowledge of ecology, human impacts, and sustainability. However, at times I felt that the test leaned towards Dynamic Planet at times but with the nature of the event, it should have been expected. Other than that, I didn't think there was anything notable about the test.

Overall Rating: 6/10

Dynamic Planet B (6th)
I've heard very mixed strong opinions about this test, some who really enjoyed the test and others that were very disappointed and bewildered with the test content. I personally thought this test barely was on topic with the outlined in the event parameters and often went off a tangent sometimes. My partner and I were confused when we saw questions like the one where we had to find by how many feet the water level had to rise to submerge the entire wetland or question with the broken road on top of the waterfall. But what was more shocking was that there were barely questions on drainage patterns, karst topography, stream competence and capacity, or types of channels, which are all clearly outlined in the event parameters. In general, this test was quite a stretch and a bit disappointing.

Overall Rating: 4/10

Codebusters B (6th)
My partners and I risked trying a new strategy by having 2 people try doing the timed question and this way we cut down on almost 2 minutes on our timed question but I really enjoyed this test and how it was geared towards the theme of this year's national tournament. I was just a bit surprised that there was only 1 or 2 pats (my memory has significantly faded so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Overall Rating: 9/10

Overall (32nd)
This was my school's first year at nationals so even making nationals was amazing and a great opportunity in itself. Everything from studying to filming the opening ceremony video to getting nats swag was fun and enjoyable. Thank you to Caltech, SOINC, and all the ESes and test writers who made this wonderful competition possible to so many schools and students interested in science. My school won 4 awards in its first year and I'm eager to come back with my high school to nationals. It was a memorable experience competing against talented teams across the country and I can't wait to hopefully come back again.
imcookiemonster
Member
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: February 11th, 2021, 2:31 pm
Division: B
State: MD
Pronouns: They/Them/Theirs
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: 2022 National Tournament: California Institute of Technology

Post by imcookiemonster »

(ooh first forum post)

Green Generation B (24th)
I didn't have any strong opinions on this test. It was decent and relied on in depth knowledge of ecology, human impacts, and sustainability. However, at times I felt that the test leaned towards Dynamic Planet at times but with the nature of the event, it should have been expected. Other than that, I didn't think there was anything notable about the test.

Overall Rating: 6/10

Dynamic Planet B (6th)
I've heard very mixed strong opinions about this test, some who really enjoyed the test and others that were very disappointed and bewildered with the test content. I personally thought this test barely was on topic with the outlined in the event parameters and often went off a tangent sometimes. My partner and I were confused when we saw questions like the one where we had to find by how many feet the water level had to rise to submerge the entire wetland or question with the broken road on top of the waterfall. But what was more shocking was that there were barely questions on drainage patterns, karst topography, stream competence and capacity, or types of channels, which are all clearly outlined in the event parameters. In general, this test was quite a stretch and a bit disappointing.

Overall Rating: 4/10

Codebusters B (6th)
My partners and I risked trying a new strategy by having 2 people try doing the timed question and this way we cut down on almost 2 minutes on our timed question but I really enjoyed this test and how it was geared towards the theme of this year's national tournament. I was just a bit surprised that there was only 1 or 2 pats (my memory has significantly faded so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Overall Rating: 9/10

Overall (32nd)
This was my school's first year at nationals so even making nationals was amazing and a great opportunity in itself. Everything from studying to filming the opening ceremony video to getting nats swag was fun and enjoyable. Thank you to Caltech, SOINC, and all the ESes and test writers who made this wonderful competition possible to so many schools and students interested in science. My school won 4 awards in its first year and I'm eager to come back with my high school to nationals. It was a memorable experience competing against talented teams across the country and I can't wait to hopefully come back again.
User avatar
Umaroth
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 398
Joined: February 10th, 2018, 8:51 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 167 times
Been thanked: 325 times

Re: 2022 National Tournament: California Institute of Technology

Post by Umaroth »

SONica wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 2:24 pm
SOPomo wrote: May 18th, 2022, 9:31 pm Congrats California, within 3 and 8 of 1st in C and 1-2 by a mile in B. Way to go Sierra Vista!
What have changed in Sierra Vista? Impressive!
New coaches as of last season (the former Kraemer coach, the former Jeffrey Trail coach, my former cocaptain from Kraemer, and myself). Always had the potential like Jeffrey Trail being in the same district (literally 10 minutes away), now it's unleashed :D
These users thanked the author Umaroth for the post:
drcubbin (May 25th, 2022, 12:48 pm)
Cal 2026
Troy SciOly 2021 Co-Captain
Proud Padre of the Evola SciOly Program 2018-now
Dank Memes Area Homeschool Juggernaut 2018-now
Sierra Vista SciOly Co-Head Coach 2020-now

Umaroth's Userpage
SONica
Member
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: April 23rd, 2019, 4:41 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: 2022 National Tournament: California Institute of Technology

Post by SONica »

Umaroth wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 7:34 pm
SONica wrote: May 23rd, 2022, 2:24 pm
SOPomo wrote: May 18th, 2022, 9:31 pm Congrats California, within 3 and 8 of 1st in C and 1-2 by a mile in B. Way to go Sierra Vista!
What have changed in Sierra Vista? Impressive!
New coaches as of last season (the former Kraemer coach, the former Jeffrey Trail coach, my former cocaptain from Kraemer, and myself). Always had the potential like Jeffrey Trail being in the same district (literally 10 minutes away), now it's unleashed :D
Congratulations! Definitely alpha team.
Post Reply

Return to “2022 Nationals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests