Imagine Cup 2010 southern quarter finals
Good afternoon!
On March 19, a regional quarter-final of the Microsoft Imagine Cup competition (for more information about the competition itself and the rules can be found on the official website: www.imaginecup.com and www.imaginecup.ru ) in the software section of the southern federal district.
Here is a small witness report
')
I want to warn you right away, since I am a member, in some matters I can be subjective.
The quarterfinal itself was held as part of the festival of the theory and practice of programming, which is held annually in Taganrog. Within the framework of the festival there is a conference and, in fact, the quarterfinal itself.
The festival began with a welcoming speech from VV Kureychik, the head of the CAD department, after him Microsoft spokesman Gavrilov A. spoke on MSF.
Then 4 student reports were heard, and, after the break, the main part began.
This year 8 projects were announced. 6 teams came to the presentation (at the end of the article there are links to brief descriptions of all participating projects).
The first thing I wanted to draw attention to was the hall - V. Kureichik. before the performance he mentioned that we will be performing in the best hall of Russia, but in reality it turned out that the microphones installed in the hall emit terrible interferences, which simply cannot make out what the speaker is saying.
Attention! Next comes a rather subjective story about the projects!
The first team was the project “Psycho-physiological measurements in the process of working with a personal computer" Ability "." At its core, the system is a polling system. The nomination in the program Imagine Cup is rather weak, and it does not correspond to the topic.
Then came the project "Glif", which also represents the testing system.
Actually, the first two projects were close to each other, weakly corresponded to the topic, and the presentation did not differ with something unusual.
But the third project "Blindsynth" is a little worthy of attention. More precisely, not even the project itself, how much the presentation, or rather its absence. The team presented an interesting project (interesting, though it is hard to believe in its success in the application), but it did it very ineptly.
The fourth project is “Health Manager” of the TTI team. Here the intrigue begins: the first worthy project appears, the only drawback of which is that it is brazenly written off from the project of the Nizhny Novgorod team, which last year took second place in the Imagine Cup final. To an open question about this, the team assured that they had never heard of such a system. The team answered the most interesting questions very evasively. By the way, another important remark, the team leader is V. Kureychik.
The fifth project “Advanced Advertisement” has a very good commercialization, but the guys were pumped up by the presentation (even more likely the equipment in the hall - they simply could not be heard)
And we were the last to speak with the project of the system of collecting and monitoring information about the state of the urban environment “Infozorius”. After the presentation, it became clear to everyone that the struggle for first and second place would flare up between our team and the TTI team.
After answering questions from the audience (many of whom were frankly stupid) and the jury, participants and spectators were asked to go out for a meeting. Instead of the promised 5 minutes, we were kept behind the door for 20-25 minutes.
The announcement of the results began with the third place, which was awarded to the project “Blindsynth”. The second place was awarded to our team, with the following words (unfortunately not literally): “Yes, the project has a future. Yes, the project was well presented. Yes, it has a zest. But still, after long meetings, we came to the conclusion that the Health Manager project is more worthy to take first place. And what would the team was not insulting, we give them the most expensive prizes. "
The first - a bit like something. The second - “the most expensive prizes” consisted of a wired mouse and keyboard.
After closing, one of the jury members approached me (unfortunately, I do not know either the name or the last name) and said something like the following:
"I think this is wrong. The first place should have been given to you. In two weeks at the semi-final, it will become clear to everyone. ”
Another very interesting thing for me is that in Taganrog at the quarter-final of the Imagine Cup, the evaluation criteria, for some reason, differ from the criteria given on the official website.
Oh, by the way, a little more about the organization. After the performance of the TTI team, about 1/3 of the spectators got up and went to the exit - I, of course, do not know how in other universities, but, for example, it’s customary for us to wait for a break, and not to leave when the other team performs - first very distracting. Secondly, the outgoing ones create noise, and in the absence of microphones the speakers are simply not audible.
Summarizing everything written, I want to say:
- apparently the presence in the commission of interested persons is not the best solution;
- evaluation criteria should be the same at all levels;
- it would be very interesting for me to look at the evaluation protocol;
- once again I draw attention to the not very high level of organization of the event.
As promised, brief descriptions of projects, as well as a recording of our performance (I apologize for the sound quality - but there is nothing better)
I. as promised, brief project descriptions:
PROJECT: “PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING WITH THE PERSONAL COMPUTER“ ABILITY ”
PROJECT: “ADVANCED ADVERTISEMENT“
PROJECT: "BLINDSYNTH"
PROJECT: "E-NET"
PROJECT: "GLIF"
PROJECT: “SYSTEM OF COLLECTION AND MONITORING OF INFORMATION ON THE ENVIRONMENT" INFOZORIUS ""
PROJECT: "HEALTH MANAGER"
PROJECT "LIFENET"
On March 19, a regional quarter-final of the Microsoft Imagine Cup competition (for more information about the competition itself and the rules can be found on the official website: www.imaginecup.com and www.imaginecup.ru ) in the software section of the southern federal district.
Here is a small witness report
')
I want to warn you right away, since I am a member, in some matters I can be subjective.
The quarterfinal itself was held as part of the festival of the theory and practice of programming, which is held annually in Taganrog. Within the framework of the festival there is a conference and, in fact, the quarterfinal itself.
The festival began with a welcoming speech from VV Kureychik, the head of the CAD department, after him Microsoft spokesman Gavrilov A. spoke on MSF.
Then 4 student reports were heard, and, after the break, the main part began.
This year 8 projects were announced. 6 teams came to the presentation (at the end of the article there are links to brief descriptions of all participating projects).
The first thing I wanted to draw attention to was the hall - V. Kureichik. before the performance he mentioned that we will be performing in the best hall of Russia, but in reality it turned out that the microphones installed in the hall emit terrible interferences, which simply cannot make out what the speaker is saying.
Attention! Next comes a rather subjective story about the projects!
The first team was the project “Psycho-physiological measurements in the process of working with a personal computer" Ability "." At its core, the system is a polling system. The nomination in the program Imagine Cup is rather weak, and it does not correspond to the topic.
Then came the project "Glif", which also represents the testing system.
Actually, the first two projects were close to each other, weakly corresponded to the topic, and the presentation did not differ with something unusual.
But the third project "Blindsynth" is a little worthy of attention. More precisely, not even the project itself, how much the presentation, or rather its absence. The team presented an interesting project (interesting, though it is hard to believe in its success in the application), but it did it very ineptly.
The fourth project is “Health Manager” of the TTI team. Here the intrigue begins: the first worthy project appears, the only drawback of which is that it is brazenly written off from the project of the Nizhny Novgorod team, which last year took second place in the Imagine Cup final. To an open question about this, the team assured that they had never heard of such a system. The team answered the most interesting questions very evasively. By the way, another important remark, the team leader is V. Kureychik.
The fifth project “Advanced Advertisement” has a very good commercialization, but the guys were pumped up by the presentation (even more likely the equipment in the hall - they simply could not be heard)
And we were the last to speak with the project of the system of collecting and monitoring information about the state of the urban environment “Infozorius”. After the presentation, it became clear to everyone that the struggle for first and second place would flare up between our team and the TTI team.
After answering questions from the audience (many of whom were frankly stupid) and the jury, participants and spectators were asked to go out for a meeting. Instead of the promised 5 minutes, we were kept behind the door for 20-25 minutes.
The announcement of the results began with the third place, which was awarded to the project “Blindsynth”. The second place was awarded to our team, with the following words (unfortunately not literally): “Yes, the project has a future. Yes, the project was well presented. Yes, it has a zest. But still, after long meetings, we came to the conclusion that the Health Manager project is more worthy to take first place. And what would the team was not insulting, we give them the most expensive prizes. "
The first - a bit like something. The second - “the most expensive prizes” consisted of a wired mouse and keyboard.
After closing, one of the jury members approached me (unfortunately, I do not know either the name or the last name) and said something like the following:
"I think this is wrong. The first place should have been given to you. In two weeks at the semi-final, it will become clear to everyone. ”
Another very interesting thing for me is that in Taganrog at the quarter-final of the Imagine Cup, the evaluation criteria, for some reason, differ from the criteria given on the official website.
Oh, by the way, a little more about the organization. After the performance of the TTI team, about 1/3 of the spectators got up and went to the exit - I, of course, do not know how in other universities, but, for example, it’s customary for us to wait for a break, and not to leave when the other team performs - first very distracting. Secondly, the outgoing ones create noise, and in the absence of microphones the speakers are simply not audible.
Summarizing everything written, I want to say:
- apparently the presence in the commission of interested persons is not the best solution;
- evaluation criteria should be the same at all levels;
- it would be very interesting for me to look at the evaluation protocol;
- once again I draw attention to the not very high level of organization of the event.
As promised, brief descriptions of projects, as well as a recording of our performance (I apologize for the sound quality - but there is nothing better)
I. as promised, brief project descriptions:
PROJECT: “PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING WITH THE PERSONAL COMPUTER“ ABILITY ”
PROJECT: “ADVANCED ADVERTISEMENT“
PROJECT: "BLINDSYNTH"
PROJECT: "E-NET"
PROJECT: "GLIF"
PROJECT: “SYSTEM OF COLLECTION AND MONITORING OF INFORMATION ON THE ENVIRONMENT" INFOZORIUS ""
PROJECT: "HEALTH MANAGER"
PROJECT "LIFENET"
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/88375/
All Articles