Author-Judge's Commentary 317 Judge's Commentary The Outstanding Stunt Person papers William p. Fox Dept of Mathematics francis Marion University Florence, SC 29501 bfoxofmarion. edu Introduction Once again, Problem a proved to be a nice challenge for both the students and the judges. The students did not have a wealth of information for the overall model from the Web or from other resources Students could find basic information for helping model the jumping of the elephant from many sources This problem turned out to be a"true"modeling oblem the students sumptions led to the development of their model. The judges had to read and diverse(yet sometimes similar) paches in order to find th best" papers. Judges found mistakes even in these"best" papers, so it is im- portant to note that"best"does not mean perfect. Many of these papers contain errors in modeling, assumptions, mathematics, and /or analysis. The judges must read and apply their own subjective analyses to evaluate critically both the technical and expository solutions presented by the teams No paper analyzed every element nor applied critical validation and sensi- tivity analysis to all aspects of their model Advice to Students and Advisors At the conclusion of the judging, the judges offered the following comments . Follow the instructions Clearly answer all List all assumptions that affect the model and justify your use of them The UMAP Journal 24(3)(2003)317-322. Copyright 2003 by COMAP, Inc. Allrights reserved Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial dvantage and that copies bear this notice. Abstracting with credit is permitted, but copyrights for components of this work owned by others than COMAP must be honored. To to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior permission from COMAP.Author-Judge’s Commentary 317 Judge’s Commentary: The Outstanding Stunt Person Papers William P. Fox Dept. of Mathematics Francis Marion University Florence, SC 29501 bfox@fmarion.edu Introduction Once again, Problem A proved to be a nice challenge for both the students and the judges. The students did not have a wealth of information for the overall model from the Web or from other resources. Students could find basic information for helping model the jumping of the elephant from many sources. This problem turned out to be a “true” modeling problem; the students’ as￾sumptions led to the development of their model. The judges had to read and evaluate many diverse (yet sometimes similar) approaches in order to find the “best” papers. Judges found mistakes even in these “best” papers, so it is im￾portant to note that “best” does not mean perfect. Many of these papers contain errors in modeling, assumptions, mathematics, and/or analysis. The judges must read and apply their own subjective analyses to evaluate critically both the technical and expository solutions presented by the teams. No paper analyzed every element nor applied critical validation and sensi￾tivity analysis to all aspects of their model. Advice to Students and Advisors At the conclusion of the judging, the judges offered the following comments: • Follow the instructions – Clearly answer all parts. – List all assumptions that affect the model and justify your use of them. The UMAP Journal 24 (3) (2003) 317–322.
c Copyright 2003 by COMAP, Inc. All rights reserved. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice. Abstracting with credit is permitted, but copyrights for components of this work owned by others than COMAP must be honored. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior permission from COMAP