National Qualification

[binary010101]

It would also work if, instead, a competition was held for a region (e.g. Mid-Atlantic states) and instead of the top 2 or however many from each state, pick the top, say, 20, and then add the top teams from each state that didn't make the cut. Not to say that the current method isn't effective in its own way.

[Celeste]

"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change." -Lucius C. Falkland

[dontsenditinthemail]

"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change." -Lucius C. Falkland

See, but that is the problem. To some it is necessary to change. Nationals as it is does not represent the top 60 teams in the country. Perhaps it measures the top 20 teams, although that is a stretch, but it definitely does not measure the top 60 teams. I know, for example, at national any score below 20th on my teams was considered to be "ehhh, alright" and we were expected to place between 1-19. If at nationals some teams are all shooting for below 20th while others are happy with 30-60, I think it is clear there is a large drop off in competativeness. That is why some feel change is necessary.

However, the argument also stands that no national competition, maybe even no state competition, always pits the best teams against eachother in the championship (what if the best two basketball teams are on the same side of the NCAA bracket? etc) and thus Science Olympiad simply follows this principle of competing.

In my opinion it isn't worth reworking the entire process unless every other competition type did the same, but I at the same time I think it is becoming even more apparent that there are teams that don't even make nationals that have the capacity to finish in the top 10, and for those teams I feel sad, and for the teams at nationals that will never compete against all of the truly great teams I also feel a bit of sadness.

[blue cobra]

I think there are some great ideas here, but some of them are more complicated and costly, and since sci oly really is about education, I think the best system is the one currently in use. Also, Science Olympiad has been around for 25 years. Someone's probably thought these things through already and determined the current system as best.

[Uncle Fester]

I'm still trying to figure out how a State that has the same two teams in each division advance to Nationals year after year after year against several HUNDRED teams dares call itself "competitive".

Seems like the small state that has five or six teams beating each other from year to year out of a total of 50 or so has far more competition.

My team goes against two of the best teams in the country at Regionals. No matter how good we do, (even if we should win), we have to go against them at States. And, should we advance to Nationals (yes, we did it once), we'll most likely have to go against ONE of them for a third time.

So what do we do? The veterans really work hard at advancing (we get better and better every year; got trophy last year instead of a wood plaque), and let the rookies know in no uncertain terms that there's no guaranteed medal, let alone a first place one, and nobody wants to be the only kid one the bus back home without one (we had one in recent years, and he wasn't happy).

To make things more difficult, any lesser performance by #1 and #2 means that at least two additional teams will rise just enough to be within reach of getting to Nationals. And guess what? they're from our region too!



The two big problems with self-serving proposals is that 1) anyone who fails to gain anything from them will oppose them (why should, say, Iowa** give a rip about Ohio's or Michigan's so-called plight), and 2) there's always someone else who will step in and take that expected reward away from you, and you're right back at square one.

If tomorrow we sent FOUR teams per division from each state, the next day there'd be complaints that it's unfair to #5.

**Disclaimer: I like Iowa. Nice people and it's easy to spell.

[Sheogorath]

Wouldn't, in the ideal world, the best plan be to have every state competition on the same day and everyone gets the same tests and the same events and then send the best teams throughout the country on to nationals.

[nejanimb]

Not necessarily. If Nationals is a competition amongst the best teams, regardless of their location, then yes, sure. But, if it's a competition amongst state representatives, as it is now, then no, definitely not.

[trophymursky]

I'm still trying to figure out how a State that has the same two teams in each division advance to Nationals year after year after year against several HUNDRED teams dares call itself "competitive".

Seems like the small state that has five or six teams beating each other from year to year out of a total of 50 or so has far more competition.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you there. My state, Pennsylvania, is probably the 2nd or 3rd most competitive state in the country even thou the same 2 teams have gone to nationals for the past 6 years. It has almost always been close and never is a sure thing that any team will go to nationals. Last year Bayard Rustin, the third place team at states, were essentially tied with penncrest in the medal count and penncrest ended up winning by 13 points. At regionals two year ago my team, harriton, was 2 points away from being 3rd at regionals. So a lot of states that outsiders may call one or two team states are completely wrong 90 % of the time. I'm sure that the top 5 teams at states would be able to get top 20 at nationals.


As a regard to the topic The point of nationals are to find the best team and it does that well. States that send 2 teams mean that the 2nd place team is good enough that at nationals they have a shot to get first. However I think states with 2 teams in the top 10 deserve a 3rd team to make sure the true top 10 gets shown at nationals.

[Paradox21]

States that send 2 teams mean that the 2nd place team is good enough that at nationals they have a shot to get first.

That is not always the case, there are also states like North Dakota who send 2 teams who both consistently place in the 50's.

[fleet130]

The point of nationals are to find the best team and it does that well.

While this might be an end result of the process, it is not necessarily a purpose/goal.

Read the Science Olympiad Mission page to find the intended purpose. In my opinion, the current system best supports the intended goals.