Your Daily Random Comment

[MTV<=>Operator]

On my team we administer tests mid November for each event. For study events these are composed of questions from invitational tests in the events where all resources that would normally be allowed in the event are allowed. For build events the tests are mainly on the rules and concepts behind the events and builders have to submit blueprints for each event as well. In the past we have had a physical building tests in which students have to build a cube from balsa wood, but we haven't had that in the past two years. Everyone takes the tests for whichever events they want to do on the team (most people take around 4 tests). Then the coach makes the teams based on test scores and for the most part people end up doing most or all of the events they tested for. We got the engineering teacher to write the build tests this year so they were pretty challenging, which made it easier to differentiate.

Some things that I want to see change for next year (hopefully I can make some of these happen)
- Way earlier tryout tests (maybe early October). I'm pretty sure most people don't begin studying until the week before anyway, so not forming the team until late November is an extreme disadvantage compared to other teams and it also makes it really hard to prepare for LISO which is two weeks after.
- Some sort of system where team members on the B and C teams have to try out for some specific events or do an event that they didn't try out for. The problem with people choosing which events to try out for is that there tend to be a few unwanted events (mainly the builds) where there is almost no competition to get on the team for these
- Some student power in choosing who gets on the team. We always name the most experienced people in each event group the captain or co captain of that event group, yet these people have no say as to who gets on the team for these

Any thoughts on these? I hope to suggest some of these to the coach at the end of the season

[IHateClouds]

wow i had no idea our team was so free on making teams
we normally just go by invie results since we don't stack at rustin. this isnt perfect since its only one invie and partners can kind of screw someone over particularly if theres a partnering of two rlly strong people which the coaches interpret as a hard carry or the other way around but honestly that sounds a lot better than doing smth sort of random. the downside is that teams come out rlly late so we have to prepare for more events than we ever compete in. (Last year I competed in 6 and got down to 3 rip event conflicts.)

- Some student power in choosing who gets on the team. We always name the most experienced people in each event group the captain or co captain of that event group, yet these people have no say as to who gets on the team for these

when you have coaches who think they know what they're doing its hard to have student power. Our coaches sometimes ask kids what they think if theres more than two people who are good on an event tho. Ive also sent them emails (basically my unsolicited advice) on what to do and they actually listened so maybe try that? But honestly if you have unreasonable coaches that wouldnt work

[EwwPhysics]

My school seems to do things very differently than most others, so I don't have any experience with tryouts, or the team being formed early in the year. However, I like MTV<=>Operator's second idea (having to try out for specific events, etc.) because it's best to make sure that there aren't any events with no one/almost no one doing them
At BCSO, we don't even have tryouts. As a result, we don't stack at all for Rustin Invitational (tho this year the coaches sorta stacked the teams unintentionally, putting almost all the 8th graders on one team...), and we use the second invie that we go to and regionals to experiment with what combinations of people would be best for the team at states. Of course, this method has problems (for example, basing the team mainly off of performance at invies creates a disadvantage for people who may not be able go to one of them), but I honestly like the idea better than tryouts as it creates more competition and motivation later in the season, when it matters the most. It also encourages more new members to keep doing scioly even if they don't make the team (because they don't even know if they did until competition). Also, letting people completely choose their events even though they might not make the team for them makes scioly more fun and welcoming in my opinion.
Also, we don't have captains or anything like that (honestly partly because we don't have enough people... only 1 person doing some events and only 2 people in many...), but student input is valued when the coaches make decisions - they always ask us to talk to them about how much each partner did and stuff like that. I MTV<=>Operator's idea of letting captains have a say in who is chosen for the team, as they can probably analyze the tryouts tests better than the coaches as they have experience competing.

[Unome]

you should push for student leadership. Right now, our group of 5 captains assign all the events and stuff.

*doesnt mention the drama*

*Doesn't mention the pain and stress of handling logistics as a student.*

Overblown imo. It's interesting, but not too terrible. Of course, depends on how much logistics there is.

[Locoholic]

Some things that I want to see change for next year (hopefully I can make some of these happen)
- Way earlier tryout tests (maybe early October). I'm pretty sure most people don't begin studying until the week before anyway, so not forming the team until late November is an extreme disadvantage compared to other teams and it also makes it really hard to prepare for LISO which is two weeks after.
- Some sort of system where team members on the B and C teams have to try out for some specific events or do an event that they didn't try out for. The problem with people choosing which events to try out for is that there tend to be a few unwanted events (mainly the builds) where there is almost no competition to get on the team for these
- Some student power in choosing who gets on the team. We always name the most experienced people in each event group the captain or co captain of that event group, yet these people have no say as to who gets on the team for these

Any thoughts on these? I hope to suggest some of these to the coach at the end of the season

Basically what my school did this year is we had a really early entrance test (early September) which was evaluated on percentile. It had no study guide, topic outline, anything like that--it just tested background knowledge. Qualifiers based on that test would advance to a building round where there's some sort of building challenge with a partner. You would be evaluated not only on your device's success but also on your teamwork and (not stated but I think true) your enthusiasm about your build and your eloquence in explaining your build ideas to administrators. Test qualifiers also write essays about their Science Olympiad interest, their top 3 event choices, and their prior qualifications. They also need a teacher rec from a math or science teacher. After the whole application is reviewed, a team of 30 is selected with no events assigned yet. Team selection is primarily done by the two coaches we have but I think some alumni also help out.

At the first meeting, we got a google form with each event, and we were asked to give each one a rating from 1-4 with 1 being most preferable and 4 being least preferable. We were told to have no more than I think 4 4's and at least 6 1's. We were also asked to state our favorite event. Based on this scale, 2 teams of 15 were created covering all events. Some people didn't get events they wanted, but hey, you can't get everything.

Starting this early in the year (late September perhaps) really gave us a lot of time to prepare for initial invitationals, which was a great advantage. Also, I thought it was a great idea to select the best team of 30 kids first and then decide events afterward.

Later in the year, based on individual performance in tournaments and relative mastery in each event, the team of 30 was cut down to 15 for states (plus a few alternates). This selection aimed to minimize event changes and still keep the most competitive team possible.

To your second point, there's no need for that in my school's system because no one tries for individual events and everyone is evaluated as a whole. Also having 2 equal teams makes sure that if there are any holes in one team, they would likely be filled up by the other team.

For your last point, there's actually no student hierarchy in our team. There's no event captain, team captain, or anything (but it also helps that our 2 coaches are some of the most organized people EVER). I believe that with good coaches who are organized and can make the right decisions, there's no need for much student administration.

My school's team system has worked well, and I don't really see any major flaws with it. I especially think that the idea of making the team before deciding events also works better, and is something maybe you can talk to your coaches about for future years. As for your ideas, I think they're great and are far easier changes to make than adopting my school's system, so you should talk about those.

[PM2017]

*doesnt mention the drama*

*Doesn't mention the pain and stress of handling logistics as a student.*

Overblown imo. It's interesting, but not too terrible. Of course, depends on how much logistics there is.

It was pretty tough for me, but as a nats qualifying team, you probably had a lot more to deal with than I did. Hmmm.

[PM2017]

Awesome

wow
yes I know this is spam but I'm going through another Hamilton phase

[JoeyC]

*doesnt mention the drama*

*Doesn't mention the pain and stress of handling logistics as a student.*

Overblown imo. It's interesting, but not too terrible. Of course, depends on how much logistics there is.

The drama can get real bad though.

[TheCowboyandhisArk]

Just watched a vine in AP LANG


PATRICIA

[Unome]

*Doesn't mention the pain and stress of handling logistics as a student.*

Overblown imo. It's interesting, but not too terrible. Of course, depends on how much logistics there is.

The drama can get real bad though.

That is fair. I didn't have to deal with too much of that, for the most part.