Scioly.org

I disagree, it's like the all-star game in baseball or hockey. There's always a representative from each team. How would you feel if your team did not get to send anyone to an all-star game? Similarly, I feel that each state should send at least one representative. I did not like missing out on nationals the way we did this year, but I would feel bad for the teams that won if they didn't get a chance to go. Could there be one school from each state and then the ten that fared the best after that? Possibly, but I think that this plan would make things too complicated. I'm in favor of the current system.

Also, think about the Olympics. For swimming for instance, each country can only send a max of 2 people per event. Could the 7th place person at US Qualifiers beat teh best person from a small African country who went to the Olympics? Probably. However, what makes the Olympics so cool is that almost the whole world is represented. If there was no cap on the numbers of swimmers sent per country, then it would wind up being about 20 countries in all the swimming events. The same thing would happen to Science Olympiad if there was no 1-2 team limit per state.

haven chuck wrote:Also, think about the Olympics. For swimming for instance, each country can only send a max of 2 people per event. Could the 7th place person at US Qualifiers beat teh best person from a small African country who went to the Olympics? Probably. However, what makes the Olympics so cool is that almost the whole world is represented. If there was no cap on the numbers of swimmers sent per country, then it would wind up being about 20 countries in all the swimming events. The same thing would happen to Science Olympiad if there was no 1-2 team limit per state.

That's because the Olympics are a competition between nations. Is the National Science Olympiad competition supposed to be a competition between states, or is it supposed to be a competition between the nation's most competitive teams? Or are nationals just supposed to determine the single best team? It's hard to come up with a good system for who should qualify when competitors don't even agree on what the competition is about. When it comes down to it, everyone will just support the system that gives them the most likely chance of going to nationals.

JustDroobles wrote:Is the National Science Olympiad competition supposed to be a competition between states, or is it supposed to be a competition between the nation's most competitive teams?

The answer to that question should be fairly obvious by the way the way invitations are currently given out.

Science Olympiads goal is to get as many students as possible interested and involved in science. Taking invitations away from less competitive states and giving them to more competitive states would detract from that goal.

packer-backer91 wrote: So each state would report each teams scores in the event to be put in a computer that would rank every team that went to State's for the whole nation.

Events from different states are not necessarily comparable. It's not practically feasible to give the same test in every state.

Nothing new is being brought up in this thread. You might want to read what others have said before making your argument.

Phenylethylamine wrote:

packer-backer91 wrote: So each state would report each teams scores in the event to be put in a computer that would rank every team that went to State's for the whole nation.

Events from different states are not necessarily comparable. It's not practically feasible to give the same test in every state.

Nothing new is being brought up in this thread. You might want to read what others have said before making your argument.

Yeah, a major thing is the list for ID events. If I remember correctly, Forestry had different lists depending on the region, so if I had studied the New York list and went to the California regionals...well, i wouldnt have done very well. So not every state has you learn the same things. Plus, if every region/state used the same event, every tournament would have to be on the same day to prevent people from getting answers, and that's not feasible at all.

I agree. It wouldn't be feasible to do that. I think that the system is fine as it is.

Wow. I find it interesting that every time there's a debate about qualifications on this thread the conclusion is always something along the lines of "I think the system is fine as it is."

I attribute it to the fact that the system has a lot of thought put into it. Although, it would be nice if a State could send an extra team every time the same teams qualify for two years in a row or more. They did that at my regional- my school has been top 1 for 10 years.

A variable # of teams would make setting a schedule difficult.
I prefer the idea of giving extra spots to States who perform well at Nationals. Say if all teams from a State are in the top 1/3 at Nationals, that state gets an extra team the following year. This would open up the competition a bit more as competitive teams from highly competitive states will have another chance at Nationals, which will boost their programs. Also, it shows the weaker states just how good some of the better states are, which will drive them to get better. 2nd-tier states have gained ground on the 1st-tier (traditionally top 5) teams/states over the past decade. However, mid-tier and lower-tier states/teams have not enjoyed the same success.

Similarly, a state can lose a bonus team if the majority of that state's teams finish in the bottom 1/3.

The equilibrium should end around 70 teams with extra qualifying positions going to the more competitive states.

One possible addition is to offer additional invitations to teams who come within 10 points of the last qualifying spot at State provided no teams from that state finished in the bottom 1/3 at Nationals the previous year and the extra team hadn't been to Nationals the previous 3 years. This is a purely sentimental rule that gives those teams' seniors who've worked so hard for years a chance to go to Nationals.