National Qualification

[andrewwski]

I agree with rocketman said. I do think, however, that larger states (size-wise) should get additional spots (as I believe they do). It's not fair to have a state with 50 teams send the same amount as a state with 300 teams.

[scienceolympiadist]

Life isn't fair. Let's just deal with it.

[gneissisnice]

Man, I wish NY sent three teams, then our high school would have gone a LOT more than we did =(

[dontsenditinthemail]

While for personal gain I would love it if more competitive states/larger states got to send more teams (OH,PA,NY), I realize now as an alum that in all reality the way it is now is the best way.

It should be known that the national tournament is not a representation of the best teams in the nation, but rather the best teams from each state (which is very very very different), and while I used to think that this was unfair, I realize now that that is how the world works. College admissions are based on geographic area an not just skill, track and field championships are based on the best people in the different regions, not necessarily the best 10 people in the state. Thus, Science Olympiad is simply following the precedent set forth by almost all other competition mediums, and for that reason I see no reason why the tried and true way of selecting teams should be changed.

Does the national tournament have the highest level of competition, hahaha, NO WAY, it is easier than my old state tournament, but is it the best way to do things? Yes.

[sewforlife]

Maybe they could allow 2 teams to go to nationals for the states whose teams were in the top 10 the previous year?
like if in one year, the top ten teams at nationals were from NY, NJ, PA, OH, MI, CO, DE, MD, HI, CA, and AZ
then for the following year, those states would have 2 teams go to nationals.
Then teams that year after year can't go to nationals cuz of one really really good team would have a chance.
and there wouldn't be too many teams.
would that work?

I think that that's a fairly good idea, but what if one of the top ten teams is from a really small state? People from a state with many teams could be irritated by the fact that a small state gets to send another team just because they had a very good team the previous year. It might work o.k. if it was in addition to the current system, but only if states that already get 2 teams could not send a third. But that might lead to more irritation from states that might have 2 really good teams that go every year, which would totally defeat the purpose. And what if a state had two teams in the top ten? I think that your idea is good on the surface, but seems to lead problems more deeply.

you mean like NJ? because we only send one team usually... except in '07.

[Mr. Cool]

honestly I don't see what's wrong with the system right now. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[scienceolympiadist]

it's not like anything is blatantly WRONG. just that, there are good reasons to some people to suggest that there competitive states should have more representation at Nationals. however, there is not an easy solution, so we must all just abide by the current system

[eak227]

It's not fair to have a state with 50 teams send the same amount as a state with 300 teams.

For the sake of devil's advocate here, why is it not fair? If one were to hold a competition with all 350 teams from these two states combined, resulting in the top 5 teams all from the small state, would it still be fair for the bigger state to send more teams to the next level of competition? This debate mostly comes down to how you want to determine the teams at nationals and who gets to go to nationals and what the point of the national competition even is.

What is the point of Science Olympiad and the National Competition? Let's analyze this question through the lens of team allotment.

I think everyone can agree that each state should be allowed to send at least one team to the national competition. So basically what it comes down to is a question of filling an extra 10-20 spots at the national competition every year with some so-called "at-large bids".

Now there are essentially two schools of thought about what the point of the national competition is.

1) SO is purely competitive. Nationals should be entirely about pitting the best SO teams in the nation against each other to determine a champion. In this case the most logical way to fill the empty slots is to give them to the states from the top teams at the previous year's competition, because one would think that those states have the best chance at producing additional competitive teams. So if Ohio has 2 teams in the top 10 one year, the next year they would get 3 teams as a reward for this good showing. They get the 1 team by default and then the 2 extras, one for each team in the top 10 from the previous year.

2) SO is about the experience as well as the competition. While SO is a competition, it was never intended to be as hard core as the IMO and all the other

• ISO's

. There are other things to be learned from SO than winning and losing. It's about the experience, the teamwork, promoting interest in science, learning new things, etc. In this case it may not necessarily be the best idea to promote winning so heavily by handing out extra slots to nationals based purely on achievement. In fact, if participation and scientific exploration is the most important element of SO, this should be rewarded by giving more slots to the national competition based on additional participation, most obviously measured by the number of teams competing in the state.



Clearly choice 2 represents the current preference of the NSO. If you want fierce academic competition, look at Siemens and Intel competitions, the ISO competitions, etc. Science Olympiad made a very obvious statement that its goal is not so much about the competition as having an overall positive experience experience with science in high school. For everyone, not just the best in the nation. Which is what I think makes SO so special. It made this statement initially by choosing to be a team based competition, focusing on teamwork and the learning experience over individual studying and all-star based competitions. It continues to do this by basing national competition slots on participation rather than achievement. If you're a second place team from a smaller state, what's the best way to get to nationals? Well, either study harder and knock off that top team next year or else go out to other high schools and encourage them to participate too. Help them form teams and give your state enough teams to send 2 teams.

[starpug]

I think it might be interesting to say that the top 10 teams a nats get/keep a second spot for their state. That way the states with really dominant teams get a chance to send some other teams besides the Jaugernaut to Nats.

[nejanimb]

I think there is something to saying that the national tournament is "the best of each state" and not "the best overall." Even in the actual Olympics, it works this way. For example, in swimming: the people who just miss the cut at US trials sometimes have times good enough to get themselves on the podium at the olympics, while some countries send swimmers that I could beat (read: I am not that good a swimmer). This is exactly the same as how it works for scioly. Plus, it's not as though those teams that just miss the cut at their state tournaments didn't get to showcase their hard work and compete - they got to go to however many invitationals there were, a regionals, and a state tournament.

That said... that doesn't mean I don't feel bad for other SoCal teams.