Ohio 2011

[soinc9876]

Anybody know when they are going to post the results my team didnt stay for the awards

They'll probably go up early next week on the OSU website, but I'll see if I can post them here too somehow later today. Is there a particular event you are interested in knowing about?

I'd like to know the results for anatomy and Ecology. Thanks

[jarrred_1415]

What happened in C towers that would kick it to a trial event?

Towers is a walk-in event for both divisions (and run by the same people). On the B schedule we had the event ending at 1:50PM, but on the C schedule we accidentally showed it going until 2:50PM (I take partially responsibility for this since I was one of a handful of people who reviewed the event schedule before it was posted). The event supervisor broke down the equipment at 2PM, dropped the scores off and left. Several teams showed up expecting to compete in the 2-2:50PM time slot and found an empty room. Since we weren't able to allow them to compete, it was only fair to not have the event count towards the team scores.

I just checked (Note we did NOT know this at the tournament yesterday and it did NOT factor into our decision), but if we had kept it as a regular event, the top 6 teams would still be in the the same order, and thus everyone who got a team trophy would have still gotten the same trophy. At least one of the top 10 teams was unable to compete, but even if they had scored 1st in the event they still wouldn't have bumped up enough in the standings to get a trophy.

Wow... that's a shocker... You'd think that it would be assumed that at a State level competition, where teams have worked their bottoms off to be there, that possibly one, maybe even 2 teams, might not compete in an event, but if there are more scores than that that are still blank, the E/C would check with SOMEBODY... ANYBODY! before just breaking his stuff down and leaving! Especially if he has proctored previously... It 's not about whether this changed a TEAM's ranking, it's about all the hard work that the skipped students did, and then could not test... No excuse for this.
... Sorry, just my opinion. Understandable at a competition like WSU... first year, many new E/Cs, intended as a practice competition for Nat's, just and Invitational, but not at State Final that has been run for 26 years... The bugs should be gone.

i watched towers for an hour or so, and it was obvious to me and several others that the event proctors didn't know what they were doing and probably got and read the rules the morning of.(all of them were college students) maybe next year it should be suggested that somebody with experience running towers should run it. what does it matter if the person is a coach the his/her team tests a tower i see no real advantage for that team. you could easily get somebody with experience to run a simple event like towers.

[wlsguy]

...Unlike most invitationals, we generally don't have the coaches run events (there are some exceptions to this), and thus it's often difficult to pull in people to volunteer their time for some strange thing called Science Olympiad....

Actually, from my count, 9 or 10 events were run by coaches this year. 7 of those coaches had teams at the event.
Having coaches run events gives their team an advantage (with a known test style, test setup, or material).

Before this year, I had previously been opposed to the practice because I have data that shows those whose coaches run the events tend to win those events.
Now, I'm beginning to thing otherwise.

I would suggest for next year:
Since the events with problems tend to have a building element, assign an experienced school to serve as the "mentor" to the outside party running the event. Many of these schools have been to many invitationals (ours goes to 5 /year) and know how the event has worked in the past. They can also help troubleshoot any problems without actually writing the test or doing the testing.
If you need test setups (which I understand was the case with Wind Power) someone should ask. Many teams have them and would gladly offer them up.

[chalker]

I'd like to know the results for anatomy and Ecology. Thanks

For which team?

[jgrischow1]

Anybody know when they are going to post the results my team didnt stay for the awards

They'll probably go up early next week on the OSU website, but I'll see if I can post them here too somehow later today. Is there a particular event you are interested in knowing about?

We weren't able to stay either. Posting the results would be very much appreciated.

[chalker7]

Before this year, I had previously been opposed to the practice because I have data that shows those whose coaches run the events tend to win those events.
Now, I'm beginning to thing otherwise.

You have data on this? Would you be willing to share that with us? Or even just me, in private.
This exact issue comes up often, especially at regional tournaments (including those that I've helped with in the past) and I'd be very curious to see what you've thought about.

Personally, I'm a strong proponent of allowing (and even encouraging) coaches to run events at regional and state tournaments. Good coaches clearly have experience and expertise with the event and will presumably run the event as written by the rules. Furthermore, they are experienced with Science Olympiad, so they know how tournaments work and will avoid many issues that come up with novice supervisors. I also think the question of bias is thrown out of proportion. Of course the coach's team will do better on a test that the coach proctors, but I don't think that is because any cheating or otherwise nefarious dealings. It's just because the coach knows the event well and is preparing the students well for it. I suspect in most (if not all) of these cases, the teams would do equally well on another high quality test written within the purview of the rules by a separate event supervisor. Furthermore, if there is any suspicion of cheating, there is always the arbitration/appeals process. It might be difficult to detect if teams are especially crafty, but this is also where the tournament director could use their personal judgement in selecting and assigning event supervisors.

[chalker]

I would suggest for next year:
Since the events with problems tend to have a building element, assign an experienced school to serve as the "mentor" to the outside party running the event. Many of these schools have been to many invitationals (ours goes to 5 /year) and know how the event has worked in the past. They can also help troubleshoot any problems without actually writing the test or doing the testing.
If you need test setups (which I understand was the case with Wind Power) someone should ask. Many teams have them and would gladly offer them up.

This is a great idea. I'll pass it on to Lynn. I think it'd help if teams would also provide Lynn with a list of events they'd be willing to mentor in.

Regarding test setups, that wasn't the fundamental issue with Wind Power. The bigger issue was the students running the event didn't realize the rules had changed significantly and were setting things up based upon last year's rules.

[aajewell]

Wondering about results from Division B Microbe Mission, Disease Detectives, Expierimental Design, and Anatomy for New Richmond Middle school at the OH state competition. Results would be great

[chalker]

What happened in C towers that would kick it to a trial event?

Towers is a walk-in event for both divisions (and run by the same people). On the B schedule we had the event ending at 1:50PM, but on the C schedule we accidentally showed it going until 2:50PM (I take partially responsibility for this since I was one of a handful of people who reviewed the event schedule before it was posted). The event supervisor broke down the equipment at 2PM, dropped the scores off and left. Several teams showed up expecting to compete in the 2-2:50PM time slot and found an empty room. Since we weren't able to allow them to compete, it was only fair to not have the event count towards the team scores.

I just checked (Note we did NOT know this at the tournament yesterday and it did NOT factor into our decision), but if we had kept it as a regular event, the top 6 teams would still be in the the same order, and thus everyone who got a team trophy would have still gotten the same trophy. At least one of the top 10 teams was unable to compete, but even if they had scored 1st in the event they still wouldn't have bumped up enough in the standings to get a trophy.

There is an additional tidbit I just found out that I thought I should share about the situation: I've just been informed that the Towers event supervisor's wife gave birth on Friday (less than 24 hours before the tournament). I'm sure that factored in to the situation and I've grateful that in spite of that he still came and conducted the event.

[wlsguy]

You have data on this? ... Furthermore, if there is any suspicion of cheating, there is always the arbitration/appeals process. It might be difficult to detect if teams are especially crafty, but this is also where the tournament director could use their personal judgement in selecting and assigning event supervisors.

I sent you a PM.

Also,
I do not think any coach is cheating. It's just coaches will prepare their team with everything they know and will write the test from the same resources/knowledge. In this case, each team will have been taught all of the answers and just need to recall it. Other teams may come across a question they didn't know. It's also one of the benefits of going to many invitationals and gettings tests written by many people. New questions and topics are presented you may not have thought of on your own.

Building events tend to have less natural bias because the test setups are typically similar (all stopwatches and scales work the same). Here the only issue is with mistakes (which are often unavoidable).