Scioly.org

MIScioly1 wrote:In Division C:
1. Northville (148)
2. IA Central (162)
3. Grand Haven (186)
4. Troy (223)

Congratulations to all who competed, and good luck to Northville and IA Central!

Wow why was it so close? Did northville bomb an event?

Taken from Tournament Results thread:

Full B Results
Full C Results

Looks like Northville had a 26th and two 18ths.

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:Taken from Tournament Results thread:

Full B Results
Full C Results

Looks like Northville had a 26th and two 18ths.

Does anyone know who the expd super was? For Illinois the super has to cancel on Thursday so it could have been her..

Ashernoel wrote:

MIScioly1 wrote:In Division C:
1. Northville (148)
2. IA Central (162)
3. Grand Haven (186)
4. Troy (223)

Congratulations to all who competed, and good luck to Northville and IA Central!

Wow why was it so close? Did northville bomb an event?

Michigan just has a really competitive State competition. Sometimes, if the tests are easy, a really good team can get a low place just by missing a few questions. We have very good students in some events that we got lower places in.

MIScioly1 wrote:

Ashernoel wrote:

MIScioly1 wrote:In Division C:
1. Northville (148)
2. IA Central (162)
3. Grand Haven (186)
4. Troy (223)

Congratulations to all who competed, and good luck to Northville and IA Central!

Wow why was it so close? Did northville bomb an event?

Michigan just has a really competitive State competition. Sometimes, if the tests are easy, a really good team can get a low place just by missing a few questions. We have very good students in some events that we got lower places in.

oh that makes sense. in illinois some tests (cough astro) are the same way and it's really annoying. other events like expd and widi can also be very volatile, and sometimes chem lab doesn't make sense. :p

Ashernoel wrote:oh that makes sense. in illinois some tests (cough astro) are the same way and it's really annoying.

That explains a lot.

Skink wrote:

Ashernoel wrote:oh that makes sense. in illinois some tests (cough astro) are the same way and it's really annoying.

That explains a lot.

IA Central is a very good team, but I expect the gap between them and Northville to widen considerably at Nationals. Some of the events at States this year were very... strange.

MIScioly1 wrote:

Skink wrote:

Ashernoel wrote:oh that makes sense. in illinois some tests (cough astro) are the same way and it's really annoying.

That explains a lot.

IA Central is a very good team, but I expect the gap between them and Northville to widen considerably at Nationals. Some of the events at States this year were very... strange.

Mm, what do you mean by "strange"? I thought all events were run very well this year, and my team had no issues with sketchy rules or event supervisors.

Also, for the record, IA Central is a team that cares less about the winning and rankings and more about the team work! Best of luck to all teams at Nationals, of course.

parasaurolophus wrote:

MIScioly1 wrote:

Skink wrote: That explains a lot.

IA Central is a very good team, but I expect the gap between them and Northville to widen considerably at Nationals. Some of the events at States this year were very... strange.

Mm, what do you mean by "strange"? I thought all events were run very well this year, and my team had no issues with sketchy rules or event supervisors.

Also, for the record, IA Central is a team that cares less about the winning and rankings and more about the team work! Best of luck to all teams at Nationals, of course.

That was not to take anything away from IA's performance, which was spectacular! I was surprised that Northville didn't do as well in a few events that they were expected to do very well in, especially Experimental Design. Often, these are solved for Nationals, which is why I thought the gap may widen, especially considering the gap between Northville and Troy last year. That being said, I am pulling for Michigan to do super well at Nats this year!

By "strange" I mean events that I thought were run poorly. Materials Science didn't have a lab, the Hovercraft test was the same as for the middle schoolers (suuuuper easy), Wind Power did not use a resistor within the range specified in the rules, Anatomy had several repeated questions, and the lab for Chem Lab was designed to take over an hour if you followed the directions properly. All teams had to deal with these problems, so it's not like anyone had an unfair advantage, but it is unfortunate for the state level.

MIScioly1 wrote:

parasaurolophus wrote:

MIScioly1 wrote:
IA Central is a very good team, but I expect the gap between them and Northville to widen considerably at Nationals. Some of the events at States this year were very... strange.

Mm, what do you mean by "strange"? I thought all events were run very well this year, and my team had no issues with sketchy rules or event supervisors.

Also, for the record, IA Central is a team that cares less about the winning and rankings and more about the team work! Best of luck to all teams at Nationals, of course.

That was not to take anything away from IA's performance, which was spectacular! I was surprised that Northville didn't do as well in a few events that they were expected to do very well in, especially Experimental Design. Often, these are solved for Nationals, which is why I thought the gap may widen, especially considering the gap between Northville and Troy last year. That being said, I am pulling for Michigan to do super well at Nats this year!

By "strange" I mean events that I thought were run poorly. Materials Science didn't have a lab, the Hovercraft test was the same as for the middle schoolers (suuuuper easy), Wind Power did not use a resistor within the range specified in the rules, Anatomy had several repeated questions, and the lab for Chem Lab was designed to take over an hour if you followed the directions properly. All teams had to deal with these problems, so it's not like anyone had an unfair advantage, but it is unfortunate for the state level.

I feel like there are always some events that are toss-ups, and I think that they tend to be Wind Power, Hovercraft, Experimental Design, WIDI, and Game On. They are often the most misunderstood events by competitors and event supervisors alike, from my experience.

Regarding Mat Sci, I took that test and I do wish that the test was longer and more calculation-based, but I'm glad the event supervisor had a lab simulation portion. My partner and I were a bit disappointed with that but the thing about MatSci is it is a topic that is very hard to gauge for high schoolers, so I have noticed this pattern a lot this season. For what it's worth, the event supervisor approached us at the end of the test and asked us how we thought it went and how we liked the test, and he seemed genuinely concerned about assessing how well he wrote it and the level of the test. It really is hard to gauge.

Regarding Chemistry Lab, my partner did the entire lab portion within the hour, and while he worked from the very beginning to the very last minute, he was able to complete it! We agree that it was a very demanding lab, but not impossible.

A lot of these discrepancies with events comes with the nature of Science Olympiad-- sometimes the people who write the tests just aren't sure how difficult or easy to make it, sometimes there is human error in how an event is run, etc. The bright side is that Michigan Science Olympiad seems to be exponentially improving and the quality of our teams is phenomenal. I am very proud of our state!