Scioly.org

windu34 wrote: ↑March 12th, 2020, 6:00 pm This would imply state directors dont have a horse in the race. As both a previous competitor (2014-2017) and tournament director (2017-2020), I have some understanding of both sides here. Many state tournament directors (myself included) have ordered thousands of dollars worth of materials and spent many hours chasing down supervisors for exams. If the events were to be repeated for next year, all of that money and hard work wouldn't have to be thrown away and my efforts not in vain.

For the benefit of people who are not tournament directors, can you explain what sorts of things you've spent thousands of dollars on that are only useful for the current year's events?

Question for other captains: how are you guys handling this? We want to do summer meetings, and our schools are closed for the next 3 weeks, so we'll be sending out tests that we had originally stockpiled for states so people can work on it while schools are shut. We are also trying to encourage partners or groups of people to work via phone call rather than a face to face meeting.

nmurali2002 wrote: ↑March 14th, 2020, 7:18 am Question for other captains: how are you guys handling this? We want to do summer meetings, and our schools are closed for the next 3 weeks, so we'll be sending out tests that we had originally stockpiled for states so people can work on it while schools are shut. We are also trying to encourage partners or groups of people to work via phone call rather than a face to face meeting.

Our coaches decided on just taking it chill until this situation passes over, then we are going to continue full steam until next year.

Honestly, I'm neutral on the subject of recycling events for next season. But it looks like many are saying no rotations will make SciOly boring, and I'm not sure anybody's discussed the following point yet.

Scientists may spend their entire lives investigating a single field without losing their burning passion for science. While scientists may study different topics across a career, they don't typically migrate into entirely different disciplines. So, professional scientists may get bored with certain topics, but their fields are broad enough that something is always interesting enough to keep their attention.

The same is true for study events. It just so happens that some people love fossils enough that they'll never tire at digging into their favorite event, and some anatomy enthusiasts will always find it heartwarming to help "cure" patients. For people with a passion, that's how it is. If you like it now, what's to say you'll get bored next season? As with real science, most study events can be taken with such great depth and breadth that there's always something waiting to be learned. It's not justified to say most competitors will get bored, just as it's not justified to say most competitors remain because they like their events. If you like circuit lab now, you'll be equally energized to do it next year. If circuit lab already rubs you the wrong way, you'll still leave feeling negative next year. Many real scientists got into their fields because they love doing it, so if you liked your study events this season, it's unlikely you'll get bored next season no matter how much you think so.

This mainly applies to study events, and I'd be delighted to see new events as much as anybody, but I don't think boredom is a good reason to advocate in favor of new events.

On a different note, it may come as a surprise but SO Inc. does read the forums. Bearasaurus, two of the Chalkers, windu34, CalColin, and Kim Gervase read and reflect over ideas penned by us. CEO Jenny Kopach even applauded the 2019-20 Coronavirus outbreak Wiki and asked bernard to make an edit for her. I don't always agree with their decisions, but I'm certain they've put their care, thought, and time towards providing a good experience for students, which is why they're in Science Olympiad.

While I agree interest in a topic is more dependent on passion than time spent on it, I'd like to point out most study event rules are written on purpose to provide a degree of restriction on what material may be covered: for example, Water Quality isn't about all marine biology and ecology. The topics are restricted for a good reason, to give both test writers and competitors an idea of what areas to study and make sure they are covering the same material. If only a topic were provided, students would be frustrated by the breadth of the field and the apparent randomness of the tests. It is impossible to cover every aspect of almost any field within a year, so SO Inc. chooses the parts it thinks are most relevant to the topic, the same way a course curriculum is a curated collection of topics that does not address every aspect of that field.

The rules are designed to provide enough to study over the course of a year while limiting the allowed material to what is feasible to cover within a year. I agree that another year of marine biology won't make me sick of it if I enjoy it now. But if rules remain exactly the same, test writers and students will need to turn to more creative ways to stay within the rules. There are only so many core concepts allowed in the rules that can be covered before tests by a single writer will begin to look similar. I already experience a limited degree of listless trivia-hunting every season. If rules stay exactly the same, I can expect this effect to worsen. Next year, I won't be sick of the study topic, but I will be sick of looking for yet another piece of random trivia to add to my cheatsheet.

While I agree boredom is not the best argument for continuing event rotations, I feel it is a good argument for at least changing or broadening the rules.

JoeyC wrote: ↑March 12th, 2020, 5:20 pm Yeah... but there's a lot that could be done in quite a few states about bids that wouldn't be too hard. However, SOinc doesn't really care.
To put it in different terms, it feels like Nintendo; it does good with its stuff, but doesn't support its users.

Hang on there. The entire reason for existence for Science Olympiad is its "users" (the students). Science Olympiad is made up of a large majority of volunteers who put in countless hours because they believe in the educational experience that it offers students. On top of that, most volunteers come back year after year because they draw inspiration from the students, seeing how excited and passionate they are.

AwersomeUser wrote: ↑March 12th, 2020, 5:42 pm

JoeyC wrote: ↑March 12th, 2020, 5:20 pm Yeah... but there's a lot that could be done in quite a few states about bids that wouldn't be too hard. However, SOinc doesn't really care.
To put it in different terms, it feels like Nintendo; it does good with its stuff, but doesn't support its users.

Yeah. I didn't even know that SOinc has a CEO until today. Is Science Olympiad a company, or a competition? Hmm...

Both. The "Inc" part stands for "incorporated," after all. National Science Olympiad ("Science Olympiad, Inc.") is a nonprofit organization. By nature, nonprofits must be incorporated, and they also must have a leadership structure. Whether there is a CEO or an Executive Director, there has to be somebody in the top role. Each state then has its own nonprofit organization.

With that being said, SO Inc is not out there to pad people's pockets. Looking at IRS records, salary makes up less than 15% of annual operating expenses. That is actually very low for a nonprofit of this size. Most of the money they collect goes right back to the tournaments.

With the rules being the same, is there a way to start the SSSS in like April? My life gets really boring without Scioly, and I really don't have the motivation to grind my events without a competition in the next ~150 days. I've resorted to writing bits and pieces of tests. It's really a struggle right now....

BennyTheJett wrote: ↑March 18th, 2020, 6:24 pm With the rules being the same, is there a way to start the SSSS in like April? My life gets really boring without Scioly, and I really don't have the motivation to grind my events without a competition in the next ~150 days. I've resorted to writing bits and pieces of tests. It's really a struggle right now....

This sounds like a good idea to me

Here are some official explanations for replaying rules posted by the scioly board on their main site:
https://www.soinc.org/sites/default/fil ... 031820.pdf

TL, DR:
PPP, Detector, Protein changes, update to bird list
10 trials between B/C which will become events in the future, and will work with state tourneys to host these trials.
Reasoning: reduces cost, no nats, unable to collect data/info, reuse of scheds and resources.
350 tourneys happened, 100 didnt. (~50 were states/nats tourneys, 1 invitational, rest were regs)

No gravity change ew