Our Team (Biggest Bestest Coders)
| People | FRQ | Points | Comments | Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aiden | 2009 #1 | 0.85/1.00 | - Didn’t go in-depth enough - Well presented |
Link |
| AJ | 2022 #1 | 0.87/1.00 | - Show understanding - Didn’t show code running + talk louder |
Link |
| Ryan | 2022 #2 | 0.90/1.00 | - Good talking volume - Could have more in-depth descriptions |
Link |
| Edwin | 2022 #3 | 0.80/1.00 | - Didn’t seem to have much understanding - Well presented, good volume |
Link |
| Toby | 2022 #3 | 0.89/1.00 | - Talked too much about the code - Good descriptions |
Link |
| Ishi | 2022 #4 | 0.87/1.00 | - Low volume - Had good descriptions - Needs more explanation on takeaways, etc. |
Link |
| Adi | 2022 #4 | 0.85/1.00 | - Well thought out code - Time yourself (went over time) |
Link |
Team y2k Coders
| People | Score | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Finn | 0.80/1.00 | - Demonstrated understanding of the topic - Lacked an in depth explanation of code - Did not show grading |
| Justin | 0.85/1.00 | - Demonstrated understanding of the topic - Showed extra experimentation to further understanding - Did not show grading - Did not show code functioning - Difficult to hear |
| Mati | 0.75/1.00 | - Demonstrated understanding of the topic - Did not show grading - Wrote code in Python when it should be in Java - Difficult to hear |
| James | 0.70/1.00 | - Explained code fairly well, though it appeared like he just read the comments - No running code during presentation, showed it running after - Difficult to hear - Did not show grading |