Viewing archives for Academic enrichment

Queen Elizabeth’s School has won a national online Mathematics competition, beating off the challenge of hundreds of other schools.

The winning team, made up of four sixth-formers, dropped just one point in the eight rounds of the University of Manchester’s MathsBombe, scoring 119 points out of a possible 120.

Headmaster Neil Enright: “My congratulations go to this team on an almost perfect performance. The competition attracted a large field of teams from leading schools across the state and the independent sectors, and it demanded both speed and deep mathematical understanding. This victory therefore represents a considerable achievement.”

The winning team comprised Year 12 pupils Bashmy Basheer, Kishan Patel, Nico Puthu and Niam Vaishnav. Notwithstanding the team’s name, maiNlyNiam, Kishan was the captain.

Organised by the university’s Mathematics department and supported by the Dame Kathleen Ollerenshaw Trust (a charity named after a mathematician and Lord Mayor of Manchester, who died in 2014 aged 101), the competition attracted entries from more than 600 schools.

From January, every two weeks a new set of problem was released online. The puzzles spanned the whole spectrum, from logic puzzles in pure Mathematics to applications of Mathematics in real-world settings.

The maximum 15 points were available to the first team to solve the problem and to other teams solving it within an hour of the first team. Other points were awarded on a sliding scale, depending on the time taken to solve each problem. The rules forbade any assistance from teachers and also prohibited collaboration between teams.

An online leaderboard enabled teams to keep track of their progress throughout the duration of the event. Kishan said this proved to be a spur to his team’s success: “The competition from the other teams encouraged us to answer the questions as quickly as possible.” Niam added that the four friends had enjoyed the opportunity to tackle challenging problems that differed from those they normally faced in the classroom.

Other teams entered by QE also performed creditably, with one, BombVoyage, taking 43rd place, having solved six of the eight puzzles and scored 70 points.

---

Here is an example of one of the problems, with the solution below:

Grobnog the Goblin King was sitting on his throne consulting with Torqmaga the Inquisitor. “Your Majesty, we’ve been infiltrated by a rogue group of Goblins,” said Torqmaga. “They call themselves Nilbogs. Physically they are identical to Goblins, but – unlike true Goblins – they always tell the truth.”

“Our whole society is founded on Goblins being evil and lying whenever they can!” said Grobnog. “We need to identify these interlopers!”

Torqmaga handed over a piece of paper. “I’ve tortured all of your subjects to find out who is a Goblin and who is a Nilbog. I can assure you that under my questioning, everybody was true to their real nature: every Nilbog told the truth and every Goblin lied.”

Grobnog inspected the list. “What does ‘or’ mean here? Does it mean ‘one or the other or both’?” he asked.

Torqmaga nodded. “Yes, your Majesty, it’s the logical meaning of the word ‘or’. It seems that torture turns Goblins and Nilbogs into very logical monsters. I’m sure you can work out from their statements below who is a Goblin and who is a Nilbog.”

Agmiz “Fragdag would definitely say that I’m a Goblin.”
Bord “Exactly one of Iz and Molk is a Nilbog.”
Cherguff “Those good-for-nothing layabouts Dolk and Lold are the same type of monster as Molk.”
Dolk “Stop the torture! Bord and Yobblot are both Nilbogs or both Goblins!”
Erkaz “I may hate his guts, but Toxplok and I are the same type of monster.”
Fragdag “Quonk and Xinik are Nilbogs.”
Gneeg “Zisbut and I are different types of monster.”
Hrunk “Gneeg is most definitely a Goblin.”
Iz “Molk is a Nilbog and deserves everything Grobnog will do to him.”
Jop “Bord would say that Fragdag is a Nilbog.”
Klaatak “Lold is a traitorous Nilbog!”
Lold “Ronx is a loyal Goblin! Will you let me off the rack now?”
Molk “Erkaz never tells me the truth, she’s a typical Goblin.”
Norbet “All I’ll say is that Wizmok is a Goblin or Zisbut is a Nilbog.”
Oinq “Agmiz and Quonk are loyal to Grobnog! They’re both Goblins!”
Plegkurk “Dolk and Hrunk are either both Nilbogs or both Goblins.”
Quonk “Oinq, if he ever stopped eating, would say that I’m a Nilbog.”
Ronx “Xinik and Bord are both evil Nilbogs.”
Squee “Lold is a typical Goblin – he owes me 200 silver pennies!”
Toxplok “That little toerag Cherguff would say I’m a Nilbog.”
Udonk “Iz would say that Ronx was a Goblin.”
Vuird “Ronx would say that Udonk is a Nilbog.”
Wizmok “What can I say? Iz is a Nilbog or Norbet is a Goblin. Will that do?”
Xinik “I know that if you ask Ronx then he’d say Squee is a Nilbog.”
Yobblot “Klaatak and Squee are both Goblins.”
Zisbut “Hrunk is a goblin — the most disgusting I’ve ever met.”

Your task is to work out which of the 26 monsters above are goblins and which are nilbogs.
Enter your answer as a sequence of 26 letters: G (for Goblin), N (for Nilbog) arranged in the order of the 26 goblins/nilbogs listed above. If you think that Agmiz is a Nilbog, Bord is a Nilbog, Cherguff is a Goblin, Dolk is a Nilbog, …, Zisbut is a Goblin then you should enter your answer as NNGN…G.

---

Solution:

Refer to each Goblin or Nilbog by the first letter of its name. If a monster is a Goblin then we’ll write that it always lies; if the monster is a Nilbog then we’ll write that it tells the truth. By saying two monsters are the same we mean that they are either both Goblins or both Nilbogs.

The clues are then:
A: F says A always lies
B: Exactly one of I, M tells the truth
C: D and L are the same as M
D: B = Y
E: T = E
F: X and Q tells the truth
G: Z != G
H: G always lies
I: M tells the truth
J: B says F tells the truth
K: L tells the truth
L: R always lies
M: E always lies
N: W always lies or Z tells the truth
O: A and Q both always lie
P: D = H
Q: O would say Q tells the truth
R: X and B both tell the truth
S: L always lies
T: C would say T tells the truth
U: I would say R always lies
V: R would say U tells the truth
W: I tells the truth or N lies
X: R would say S tells the truth
Y: K and S both always lie
Z: H always lies

1. Consider clue I. If I is telling the truth then M always tells the truth. If I is lying then M is lying. Hence I = M (but we don’t know whether they both lie or both tell the truth).
2. Clue B says that I != M. Hence B is lying.
3. Clue R says that B tells the truth. Hence R must be lying. (Note that we can’t say anything about X from clue R.)
4. Clue L says that L must be telling the truth. Hence K is also telling the truth (K’s clue) and S is lying (S’s clue).
5. Clue Y says that both K and S both lie. But K tells the truth. So Y is lying. As both B and Y are lying, Clue D is true; hence D tells the truth.
6. Consider clue X. Suppose that X lies. If X is lying then R would actually say that S lies. We know that R lies, this would actually mean that S tells the truth. But we know S lies, so our assumption that X lies is wrong. Hence X tells the truth.
7. Consider clue F. Suppose that F is telling the truth. Then clue F tells us that X tells the truth (we already knew this) and Q tells the truth. Clue Q then tells us that O would say that Q is telling the truth (which indeed Q is), so O must also be telling the truth. Clue O tells us that both A and Q both lie. But this contradicts the fact that we’ve just argued that Q is telling the truth. Hence our assumption that F is telling the truth is wrong, so F must be lying.
8. As F is lying, it’s not true that both X and Q tell the truth. We know that X does tell the truth. So this tells us that Q must be lying.
9. Knowing that Q is lying, clue Q tells us that O would actually say that Q lies. This is indeed the case, hence O is telling the truth.
10. Clue O now tells us that A lies.
11. Consider Clue J. We know B lies. As F lies, B would indeed say that F told the truth. Hence J is making a true statement, so is telling the truth.
12. Consider Clue M. We’ll consider the two cases (M tells the truth, M lies) separately. First suppose that M tells the truth. Then E must lie. Clue E says that T and E are different, hence T must tell the truth. Now consider the other case where M lies. In this case, clue M says that E is telling the truth; it then follows from clue E that T is also telling the truth. Hence, no matter whether M is telling the truth or lying, we must have that T is telling the truth.
13. Clue T tells us that C is making a true statement. Hence C tells the truth.
14. Clue C tells us that M is the same as D and L (who are both telling the truth). Hence M is telling the truth. Clue M then tells us that E is lying.
15. Clue I is making a true statement about M. Hence I tells the truth.
16. Consider clue U. Monster I tells the truth, and R does indeed lie. Hence U is telling the truth.
17. Consider clue V. Suppose V tells the truth. Then R would indeed say that U tells the truth. We know that R lies, so this would mean that U lies. But U tells the truth, a contradiction. Hence V must lie.
18. Consider clue Z. Suppose Z tells the truth. Then H lies. Clue H then tells us that G tells the truth. Clue G tells us that Z and G are different. But we’ve just argued that both Z and G tell the truth, a contradiction. Hence Z must lie.
19. Clue Z then tells us that H tells the truth.
20. Clue H then tells us that G lies. (Just to check: G lies, so clue G tells us that both Z and G are the same, which indeed they are.)
21. As both D and H tell the truth, clue P implies that P tells the truth.
22. Consider clue W. Suppose W always lies. Then clue W tells us that monster I always lies and N tells the truth. But we already know that monster I tells the truth, a contradiction. Hence W must tell the truth. (Note that, even though we know W tells the truth, clue W doesn’t tell us anything about whether N lies or not.)
23. Finally, consider clue N. If N is telling the truth then either W lies or Z tells the truth. But W tells the truth and Z lies, so neither of these possibilities can happen. Hence N must be lying.
Hence (denoting T for ‘telling the truth’ and L for ‘lying’) we can assign

ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ
LLTTLLLTTTTTT LTTLLLTTLTTLL

Reverting back to ‘Goblins always lie’ and ‘Nilbogs always tell the truth’ this gives

ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ
GGNNGGGNNNNNN GNNGGGNNGNNGG

so the required answer is GGNNGGGNNNNNNGNNGGGNNGNNGG

Queen Elizabeth’s School has once again excelled in the British Biology Olympiad, with two sixth-formers reaching the final round, which is open only to the top 16 young biologists in the country.

Year 13 pupils Showgo Kimura and Michael Takla were selected from Round 2 for the four-day finals, a series of practical examinations held at Warwick University.

They were among five QE boys who had qualified for Round 2, with the others being fellow sixth-formers Ilan Elango, Milan Hirji and Simon Rey. The five’s qualification placed them in the top 2 per cent of the 7,818 entrants nationwide.

Last year, QE was crowned the best-performing school in the country in the prestigious Olympiad competition, and although it will not be known until later this year if it has repeated this feat, the School is certainly in a strong position, says Biology teacher Mev Armon: it has amassed a total of 14 gold, 16 silver and 15 bronze medals.

Congratulating Showgo and Michael, Mr Armon said: “They have worked for almost two years, developing additional skills outside of the specification at lunch times. I am very proud of them and of all the boys who were awarded medals.”

After returning from Warwick, the pair reflected on the experience. Their preparation included areas such as botany, gel electrophoresis and locust dissections.

Michael said: “I enjoyed the opportunity to improve my practical skills, learning new lab techniques, and being surrounded by other people who were as interested in Biology as I am. I particularly found a practical on the induction of β–galactosidase in E. coli very interesting because it complemented prior knowledge of the regulation of lac operon expression with experimental evidence.”

Showgo added: “Unlike with School practicals, we weren’t given any extra reagent, even if we had used ours up, and this meant it was important to plan before starting. I realised this too late and had almost finished the blood sample provided on making blood smears when I needed more to complete the rest of the examination.

“Although I made other small mistakes throughout the rest of the practicals, I enjoyed all of them, especially the maggot dissection. In this practical, we had to dissect a maggot of roughly 2cm to find the dorsal vessel (the ‘heart’) and apply several drugs to investigate their effects. At first, I kept damaging the heart, but after a few attempts I improved and was able to do the dissection with ease. I didn’t expect practical exams to be as challenging and interesting as they were and I’m sure the skills I gained from them will continue to be useful as I study Natural Sciences at university.”

Two QE boys who entered an international competition have had their work published in a new book.

Jonathan Ho, of Year 12, and Matt Salomone, of Year 11, drew on inspiration from the Trojan War for the poems they entered in a multi-disciplinary art competition organised by the University of Leicester.

The book, entitled Artefact to Art, was launched at the Annual Conference of the Classics Association in Leicester. During the ceremony, both boys were singled out for a special mention by the organiser of the competition, Dr Naoise Mac Sweeney, who is the university’s Associate Professor in Ancient History.

Headmaster Neil Enright said: “This is wonderful news; my congratulations go to Jonathan and Matt. It is very exciting to have a success such as this in our maturing Classics department. Such competitions provide excellent opportunities for our boys to display their creativity and express themselves.”

Jonathan and Matt received delegate passes, together with their parents, to attend the day, worth £240 per family. The boys, who are particularly keen on myths and have set up their own society at the School, also each received a copy of the book. The boys’ entries were judged by the poet, Dan Simpson, with whom they were photographed at the book launch. The prizes for the winners were given out by the well-known author of the Roman Mysteries series of historical novels for young people, Caroline Lawrence.

The competition, which attracted 200 entries from four continents, required participants to produce a piece of art, whether handicraft or poem, inspired by an ancient artefact. Both Jonathan and Matt chose the black-figured amphora by Exekias from 540 BC, which shows the two friends and heroes of the Trojan War, Ajax and Achilles, playing a board game in full armour.

The pair have recently been looking at Homer with QE’s visiting teacher of Ancient Greek, Dr Corinna Illingworth, who also attended the ceremony. “Every piece of work that was included in the book – whether poem or handicraft- was displayed in a beautifully arranged exhibition,” she said. “The variety of artworks on show was very impressive and it was moving to read what had inspired each young artist.”

She added that the competition, which was open to all pupils of secondary school age, gave the two boys the chance to explore art history, consider mythical literature and practise creative writing.

Jonathan said: “What inspired me was how battles and wars are always manipulated by a few men and this can be seen even in ancient history. One can compare a game of strategy to war.”

Jonathan’s poem:

As the pieces are place, the army is drawn up,
The players focused, the army terrified.
Dim lights are engulfed by darkness,
As the stars in the sky foretell the future.
Who will win? Who will lose?
Only the Fates can see.
As the ground rumbles with the feet of men,
Destiny is made.
However, only one side can emerge victorious,
The other drowned in sorrow and loss.
What will happen next?
Let’s see who wins, then I’ll tell you…

Matt was inspired by similar thoughts: “These famous generals are playing a game together – perhaps a strategic game like chess – which interestingly shows the similarities between a general in war and a leader in a game. There is a clear contrast in the piece, but it also reveals that these two have fewer differences than I first thought.”

Matt’s poem:

The nature of war and the thrill of games
Are no much unlike. A duet of heroes,
Armed and allied, set for any challenge,
Sitting down all the while. Finding peace in a board game.

“Four!” “Three!” Thus, the winner seems evident.
Yet the other does not back off. End has yet to arrive.

Looming, towering, threatening with helm and hand;

Nervously raised foot in response, but the battle ensues
Yet neither leader strikes. For their war attacks the psyche –

Victorious in spirit, soldiers in their fingers,
Strategy in mind, fate in fortune.
Perhaps soon they will take up their shields;
Until then, the real fight is in dice.

QE pupils beat off competition from 30 other schools to win the regional round of the Team Maths Challenge.

The four boys from Years 8 and 9 secured victory over Merchant Taylors’, in second place, and Haberdashers’ Aske’s Boys’, who came third. They now go through to the national finals in London’s Royal Horticultural Halls in June – the third time that a QE team has reached this stage in the prestigious UK Mathematics Trust contest.

Headmaster Neil Enright said: “I congratulate our boys on a resounding success, which demonstrated not only their mathematical prowess and their ability to think clearly under pressure, but also skills in communication and teamwork.”

The team was led by Year 9 pupil Dan Suciu and comprised Shimaq-Ahamed Sakeel Mohamed, also of Year 9, together with Year 8 boys Bhunit Santhiramoulesan and Agrim Sharma. They scored a winning total of 223 points out of 236 in the event, which was hosted by Haberdashers’ Aske’s School for Girls in Elstree.

The competition aims to offer pupils a means of expressing and developing their enjoyment of Mathematics, with problems that are mostly accessible, yet still challenge those with more experience. The event involves four rounds:

• Crossnumber – one pair of contestants is given the ‘across’ clues and the other pair the ‘down’ clues
• Shuttle – pairs solve problems where the answer to the previous question feeds into the next question
• Relay – again working in pairs to solve problems, but also involves movement around the room in a race against the clock
• Group round – working as a team of four to solve ten problems.

Captain Dan said after the event: “We were delighted to win and really pleased that our hard work paid off, especially in the Shuttle Round. We’re all really looking forward to the next round.”

A QE team were placed in the UK’s top 10 schools in the national finals of the Bar Mock Trial competition – with numerous aspects of their defence case scoring full marks.

The team of senior boys had reached the national final of the prestigious legal competition in Cardiff after competing successfully in three qualifying rounds. They were placed ninth on the day.

Headmaster Neil Enright said: “We encourage our boys to enter such competitions because participation develops their oracy skills, enhances their ability to think on their feet – especially in a high-pressure situation such as cross-examination – and pits them against some of the brightest and most talented young minds in the country.”

“It also introduces them to the pressures and demands of the legal profession – a field to which many of our boys aspire.”

English teacher, Lucy Riseborough added: “I’m very pleased with the result, especially against such strong competition. Our defence team of Laurie Mathias and Mipham Samten was outstanding, and a special mention has to go to Mipham for his 10 out of 10 score.”

The final mirrored earlier rounds of the competition in which mock criminal trials were held in a Crown Court in front of real judges. The QE team took part in three trials, overcoming Woodroffe School from Lyme Regis by 91 points to 82 but losing narrowly to two other schools. This year’s overall champions were Wilmslow High School from Cheshire.

The QE team were the prosecutors in two of their cases and defendants in the third. All the boys took various parts, from barristers to witnesses, jurors, court reports and ushers.

“I was especially pleased to see the way in which our boys took on the feedback from the judges and markers and improved from round to round,” said Miss Riseborough. “The boys had picked up from Round Two the importance of restricting their questioning to crucial facts. They also performed with confidence, which put the opposition under pressure.”

The Bar Mock Trial Competition, now in its 27th year, is run by the Citizenship Foundation and supported by the Bar Council of England and Wales, the Faculty of Advocates, the Bar Library of Northern Ireland, HM Courts & Tribunal Service, the Circuits and the Inns of Court.

It is open to young people from state schools aged 15-18 and aims to give pupils insights into the justice system and an opportunity to develop skills such as logical reasoning, clear communication and teamwork. Two hundred schools entered this year.

The QE participants were: Nathan Chu, Shivam Masrani, Laurie Mathias, Mipham Samten, Anake Singh, and Benjamin Suen, all from Year 12, along with Alex Beard, Rivu Chowdhury, Hector Cooper, Kieran Dhrona, Haider Jabir, Viraj Mehta, Saifullah Shah and Sajan Suganth from Year 11.

A team of senior QE boys have reached the national finals of a competition that involves mock criminal trials in a crown court in front of real judges.

The QE team performed strongly in three initial rounds at the regional finals of the Bar Mock Trial Competition, before emerging victorious from the final round, where they were pitted against the day’s other best-performing school, the Reach Academy.

After seeing off all 11 of the other shortlisted London state schools at the regional event at the Inner London Crown Court, they will now compete in the national finals at Cardiff Crown Court in March 2018.

English teacher Lucy Riseborough said: “The boys did extremely well and the judges commented on how well the ‘barristers’ in our cases performed.”

Each team comprised not only pupils playing the part of barristers, but also others needed to create a realistic court scene, from witnesses and jurors to court reporters and ushers.

The QE contingent prepared two different cases in the run-up to the event. One was a theft and fraud case involving a carer accused of stealing £1,320 from the man she was looking after. She used to do his shopping and claimed that she had accidentally taken his bank card home and had left it in a safe place. Since she lived with five other people, she argued that one of them could have accessed the card.

The second involved a charge of grievous bodily harm: a couple had an argument and the defendant broke his partner’s tibia. However, he claimed she threatened him with a knife and that he was acting in self-defence.

Teacher Tom Jack reported that the boys not only performed well, but also improved through each round, with third-round barristers Laurie Mathias and Mipham Samten learning from the judge’s feedback from the second round, when the QE barristers, Anake Singh and Saifullah Shah, had successfully prosecuted the same defendant.

“The two barristers therefore restricted their questioning to crucial facts, meaning that their closing argument was a mystery to the opposition until the very last moment. Confident performances from the witnesses for the defence (Hector Cooper and Viraj Mehta) put the prosecuting barristers under pressure, leading them to halt their questioning earlier than planned. By the time the jury retired, the result was just a formality; they found the defendant innocent on both charges.”

Having done so well in the three rounds, the boys knew they had a good chance of reaching the final, but were nevertheless excited and proud when this was confirmed.

“This achievement afforded the boys the opportunity to prosecute a case inside one of the main courtrooms, an experience nerve-wracking and enriching in equal measure.” The final round brought intense questioning on both sides and “a tangible impression of strategising from the respective barristers”, said Mr Jack, who teaches Music. “During the exchanges, the QE boys had to contend with one defence witness who clearly had the potential to intimidate the opposition and throw them off their game with her lengthy and convoluted responses. However, after neatly extracting the responses required from the ‘difficult customer’, Saifullah Shah’s closing statement tied up the various strands of the prosecution’s argument, leaving the jury to retire with a difficult decision.

“Although they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict, a majority decision narrowly found the defendant guilty, but the boys still needed the marks to go in their favour to claim a deserved victory. After deliberating for a good ten minutes, the judge returned with the news that the QE team had triumphed!”

The Bar Mock Trial Competition, which is open to young people aged 15-18, aims to give pupils insights into the justice system and encourages the development of skills such as logical reasoning, clear communication and teamwork. Now in its 26th year, the competition is run by the Citizenship Foundation and supported by the Bar Council of England and Wales, the Faculty of Advocates, the Bar Library of Northern Ireland, HM Courts & Tribunal Service, the Circuits and the Inns of Court.

The QE participants were as follows:

Barristers
Laurie Mathias, Year 12
Mipham Samten, Year 12
Saifullah Shah, Year 11
Anake Singh, Year 12

Jury
Alex Beard, Year 11
Nathan Chu, Year 12
Shivam Masrani, Year 12
Benjamin Suen, Year 12
Sajan Suganth, Year 11

Witnesses
Hector Cooper, Year 11
Kieran Dhrona, Year 11
Haider Jabir, Year 11
Viraj Mehta, Year 11

Court Clerk
Rivu Chowdhury, Year 11

Usher
Akram Ahmad, Year 11