Scioly.org

Our school just started a second team this year. This year what happened is that they gave us information on what to study for tryout tests a week before the test. This was effective in finding those who were dedicated because one week was such a small time to fit so much information. Those who really wanted to get on the team spent all their spare time cramming, and those who were just interested were not seen studying during lunch and other breaks. The highest scoring test people were on the a team and the second best group was the b team. In our school we split off the sections into life, earth&space, tech, phys chem, etc. (we only studied for one section of our pick) and were tested by a general test combining all the events

Mej710,

For my tryouts, I do not train the students, but instead, expect them to train themselves!

A lot of Science Olympiad is independent learning. Very smart, yet very lazy students exist, and sometimes think they want to be part of the team. However, they have made it through their classes, often the "Honors" courses, without having to do much studying because they can absorb what the teacher hands them during class time. Many have made it through much of high school without even having to read chapters in their books.

Thus, I want the tryout season to wake them up to the fact that they are the ones who need to teach themselves. I honestly offer little help during these two weeks in order to see who will actually help themselves.

When selecting who is on Varsity and who is on JV, some things that are considered are certainly experience, age (the older the student, the more math skills they are likely to have), and commitment to the team (are they busy with many other things, such as other clubs or sports, or can they dedicate much more of their spare time to the Sci Oly team). In the end though, the most important factor is performance. If they don't have the goods, then they aren't the best choice for the Varsity team.

After tryouts, it is pretty clear who measures up. Attendance, organization, and study behaviors are apparent. I would always prefer a "hardcore studier" to a really smart, but lazy student. Not knowing as much, yet very willing to learn is what it takes to be on a Science Olympiad team. Being very smart, but unwilling to spend the time to teach themselves and study and read is very hard to change in a student.

Mr_Lund-

So, during the two weeks, students study for the tests at the meetings and you can see which students are the most dedicated? What if some students can't come to a lot of the meetings due to other clubs and activities they are in, but really want to be in the club and get good scores on the tests? Is there any way I can make sure they are preparing outside of the meetings?

It seems like testing is an important part of deciding who will be on each team. I guess if we know how dedicated students are, as well as how well they can do on the tests, it will make it easier for us to find the best students for the A team.

Also, how are alternates chosen? This year we just had some students who wanted to be alternates but I don't know if it will work out that way next year. Are they necessary?

Mej710,

I do try to work around students' other schedules, if they show that they are effectively using what time they do have. There are some that are compatible with our team. We practice Tue., Wed., Thurs., with an optional practice on Fridays (mostly for engineers who need the extra build time, though anyone can show up). Quiz Bowl, for example, only practices once a week for most weeks, and so if students need to miss a day, they can. We also have Business Professionals of America, who miss an occasional day here and there. We have a boys swim team member, and that works because their practice is later than ours, so they just cut out from ours early each day.

As long as they can still get the job done, I'm okay with working around these types of things. However, you do get from time to time, students who want to do just about every club there is, in which case, they may be spreading themselves too thin. We have the advantage of having enough interest at the school that we have too teams, Varsity and JV. If students make it through the tryouts, they come on to the team as JV, which then gives me a full year to see if they truly are dedicated enough. Some students need that first year to really see how much time is demanded of them anyway.

In short, yes, if the student shows effort and talent, being in other activities does not bar them from the team. It's the results that always matter, and if the "busy" student can still produce the goods, then that's the bottom line. They still must make it to some practices though, as communication with their team members is a vital necessity to being successful.

Something that also helps during the tryout season is to have the students keep an up to date and SPECIFIC log of what they studied and how well they used their time. During the tryout season, I try to give students plenty to do, so that they can feel just how time demanding it can be. Simulate that experience for them, and you'll see who is working for you and who is coming up short.

For our school's tryouts, the coach picks people who, firstly, medal-ed in the previous year. Anyone who did well is on the team, no questions asked.

Then, she gives us mini tests on the events we're interested in. We're told to study them before the "tryouts", but this isn't an effective system, because no one does. Thus, the coach just looks through the mini tests and sees that we've all just guessed on every question and precedes to put us on the team based on her opinion of us. It's a really ineffective way of picking people. Any good suggestions for a better way to pick teams?

Celestite wrote:For our school's tryouts, the coach picks people who, firstly, medal-ed in the previous year. Anyone who did well is on the team, no questions asked.

Then, she gives us mini tests on the events we're interested in. We're told to study them before the "tryouts", but this isn't an effective system, because no one does. Thus, the coach just looks through the mini tests and sees that we've all just guessed on every question and precedes to put us on the team based on her opinion of us. It's a really ineffective way of picking people. Any good suggestions for a better way to pick teams?

Hmm I think the only reason why your tryouts isn't working is due to lack of competition. At our school a BUNCH of people tried out. And people who were on the team last year still had to test in. Not everybody who was on the team last year (that didn't go to division c) made it again. The only suggestion I have is to make tryouts more competitive so people study and make sure everybody tests, no matter what. ^_^' not sure on what you can do if nobody studies.

Our school's tryouts have a test to get in, on general science stuff but in many topics. I think a good amount of people tried out but not a lot. Our coach told us that people on the Regional and State team for this year don't have to test again next year to get in, but I personally think it should be people who were on those teams and medaled in at least 2 of their events because I know many people are trying out next year and we need the best. By the way our SciOly team has around 40 people, she picks the 15 based off of what students tell her they see, what she sees, and how well we do on cutoff exams.