Scioly.org

*looks up WSSL*

*is instantly jealous of Massachusetts SO*

Alex-RCHS wrote:*looks up WSSL*

*is instantly jealous of Massachusetts SO*

Yea, WSSL is pretty great haha. Everyone sits together in a cafeteria so we can find our rivals and start beef with them (jk jk).

Alex-RCHS wrote:*looks up WSSL*

*is instantly jealous of Massachusetts SO*

It's not as amazing as it sounds tbh. The test quality can be highly variable. But the build testing is often very well done.

gryphaea1635 wrote:

Alex-RCHS wrote:*looks up WSSL*

*is instantly jealous of Massachusetts SO*

Yea, WSSL is pretty great haha. Everyone sits together in a cafeteria so we can find our rivals and start beef with them (jk jk).

antoine_ego wrote:

Alex-RCHS wrote:*looks up WSSL*

*is instantly jealous of Massachusetts SO*

It's not as amazing as it sounds tbh. The test quality can be highly variable. But the build testing is often very well done.

WSSL is so great for getting newcomers involved and interested in science olympiad. It's a small commitment: just by going to one meet you can tell whether scioly is something you want to put time into or leave behind.

That being said, as a newish (3rd year) team which, until this year, attended no invitationals before states besides WSSL, it's not too helpful for preparing for regular scioly competitions. Many of the events aren't the official 23, and as antoine_ego mentioned, the quality of tests (I can't speak for builds) is pretty inconsistent (though there are very solid ones)

fizzle wrote:

antoine_ego wrote:

Alex-RCHS wrote:*looks up WSSL*

*is instantly jealous of Massachusetts SO*

It's not as amazing as it sounds tbh. The test quality can be highly variable. But the build testing is often very well done.

WSSL is so great for getting newcomers involved and interested in science olympiad. It's a small commitment: just by going to one meet you can tell whether scioly is something you want to put time into or leave behind.

That being said, as a newish (3rd year) team which, until this year, attended no invitationals before states besides WSSL, it's not too helpful for preparing for regular scioly competitions. Many of the events aren't the official 23, and as antoine_ego mentioned, the quality of tests (I can't speak for builds) is pretty inconsistent (though there are very solid ones)

I agree with the idea of it helping newcomers. The biggest thing that perturbs me is most definitely the test quality though. I know that runners want to make a test nice and accessible for everyone to enjoy, but it'd definitely be nice if they were invitational length at least. I'd also love it if they posted blank tests after the competition, so our teams could review and discuss. Or at least so that there's greater accountability for the writers on their test quality.

At least from what I've seen, the builds are run very solidly. Often times, they're run by the State ESs, who are good (Robot Arm last year and Mousetrap Vehicle come to mind).

I'm very excited to see the results of the next meet, good luck to everyone!

looking at the concept behind WSSL, I have a few things that scare me of from the idea

1.) The events run....the events run aren't always out of the 23...this can end up being confusing for a new team and not only make it harder for them to perform well in the WSSL, but due to everything they have to juggle, it can be detrimental to their performance at states as well.

2.) The small number of events run...at any given competition, a maximum of 8 students from a school can compete...due to the event choices, many students might not compete at all...how is this fair

3.) The fact that this won't really prepare students for a competition experience...I see the arguments that WSSL is enough to see if you like oly, I'm not buying it. It doesn't seem anywhere close.

What I am trying to say is, instead of running five "meets", why not run 1 or 2 invites?

WhatScience? wrote:What I am trying to say is, instead of running five "meets", why not run 1 or 2 invites?

Probably because running an invitational is very difficult. WSSL with a more consistent format might work out pretty well.

WhatScience? wrote:looking at the concept behind WSSL, I have a few things that scare me of from the idea

1.) The events run....the events run aren't always out of the 23...this can end up being confusing for a new team and not only make it harder for them to perform well in the WSSL, but due to everything they have to juggle, it can be detrimental to their performance at states as well.

2.) The small number of events run...at any given competition, a maximum of 8 students from a school can compete...due to the event choices, many students might not compete at all...how is this fair

3.) The fact that this won't really prepare students for a competition experience...I see the arguments that WSSL is enough to see if you like oly, I'm not buying it. It doesn't seem anywhere close.

What I am trying to say is, instead of running five "meets", why not run 1 or 2 invites?

1) Most events are run out of the 23, only occasionally do they pull stuff from past years. Yes, it might affect performance at states, but most of the time the events are run off the rules, so it's usually helpful. I most definitely don't think it would be "detrimental" to a team, especially considering the lack of smaller invitationals in MA.

2) 4 people per event, so total 16 people. Also B teams are allowed so max 32. This exceeds the size of most teams in MA (we often don't even have full B teams). Sometimes teams don't show up with full A teams.

3) The purpose of WSSL is not to really be a super competitive thing. It's supposed to be a fun event every month of casual competition. The stakes are very low compared to invitationals. I agree that it differs greatly from the standard experience, but it's definitely a fun one.

#MAPride

WhatScience? wrote:looking at the concept behind WSSL, I have a few things that scare me of from the idea

1.) The events run....the events run aren't always out of the 23...this can end up being confusing for a new team and not only make it harder for them to perform well in the WSSL, but due to everything they have to juggle, it can be detrimental to their performance at states as well.

2.) The small number of events run...at any given competition, a maximum of 8 students from a school can compete...due to the event choices, many students might not compete at all...how is this fair

3.) The fact that this won't really prepare students for a competition experience...I see the arguments that WSSL is enough to see if you like oly, I'm not buying it. It doesn't seem anywhere close.

What I am trying to say is, instead of running five "meets", why not run 1 or 2 invites?

Sure, from an absolute perspective, comparing it to top quality invitationals, it doesn't look like a primo competition.

But for the amount of effort put into organizing it, it's actually a wonderfully efficient system. No one has to pay to compete. Every school who participates runs one event a year. And the only hosting costs required is one school every month hosting four events, the majority of the resources being handled by the ES themselves. The reason it can keep going on month after month, year after year and be open to all is because of how easy it is to organize. Hosting two invitationals would be a lot more effort than all the work needed to run WSSL. And schools are welcome to bring B teams.

I can vouch for the fact that WSSL has hurt our states prep in the past, but that's not an inherent problem with the system; it's a team and organizational problem. Now that we have two years of experience on our belts, we have enough people where newbies can get accustomed to scioly through WSSL, while more experienced members help as mentors and prepare for the "real" competitions. That system is great if you have a ton of people who are interested in scioly - when usually only 15 would get the chance to experience competition regularly.

There are real invitationals in our area too! MIT is accommodating in letting local teams participate, and this year there are a few more invitationals in the area as well. So I don't see why WSSL is a bad thing. If your team is experienced enough where WSSL isn't helpful, just send your freshmen there to gain experience and study on your own

2 pts difference between Belmont and BLS for the third place trophy... we almost beat you guys but good job with that pro comeback haha (if anyone from Belmont sees this lol)

GG... thanks for real though, WSSL has never been this exciting