New York 2018

[Name]

So I went to Syosset too. Maybe this will sound a bit like "back in my day!"...whatever. When I competed it didn't seem like GNS/Stuy could ever get top 5 or 6. They might've a few times (I forget, maybe GNS, but certainly not often). I recall them definitely getting top 10, but there were just so many teams shooting for those spots, and there still are! Just because a lot of teams are at the top, it certainly doesn't stop things from changing, especially one that still gets top 10 like Syosset.

Next, adding more schools sounds like more of a bandaid. Even if you up the number of nats spots to 3, there will be a vast majority of teams and teams that will be very miffed at effectively never being able to make it. I won't go into the example issues because East covers this well. Also, You can bet the current top 3 will NOT back down from fighting for their spots, quite the opposite since they can all go.

For middle schools, I don't really know how the state competition works as well because I didn't go to as competitive a middle school, but what I hear is it is heavily coach-dependent, so I'm unsure how upping the amount of teams would help things all that much (as it seems much more consistent and even less likely to change overall).

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, as I came from your HS too, but I do think there is a bit of a deeper perspective to be had *because* I came from your HS...

I definitely agree with this, and it's very unrealistic to add more teams especially with states such as Texas missing out on thier second bid. I personally believe that nats should be a representation of the best teams in the country but that's unrealistic to figure out who's the best, and this is the best option available. I guess I'm just kinda annoyed with the same teams dominating states that makes it feel hopeless and lowers overall motivation. They gave the effort and deserve to go to nats, and I guess I feel it's unfair the same teams are going year after year, even though this is the best system possible. Obviously the rise of a team like Mason is definitely possible, but with top teams getting more and more experience, these rises are being rarer, especially if teams are lacking motivation.

It's definitely possible to get a team to nats from any current state, but I feel like this task is nearly impossible without some sort of influence to motivate them beyond already extremely motivated teams.

Yeah and I guess if you somehow magically added like 10 spots somehow 15th place would be complaining.

[knottingpurple]

So I went to Syosset too. Maybe this will sound a bit like "back in my day!"...whatever. When I competed it didn't seem like GNS/Stuy could ever get top 5 or 6. They might've a few times (I forget, maybe GNS, but certainly not often). I recall them definitely getting top 10, but there were just so many teams shooting for those spots, and there still are! Just because a lot of teams are at the top, it certainly doesn't stop things from changing, especially one that still gets top 10 like Syosset.

Next, adding more schools sounds like more of a bandaid. Even if you up the number of nats spots to 3, there will be a vast majority of teams and teams that will be very miffed at effectively never being able to make it. I won't go into the example issues because East covers this well. Also, You can bet the current top 3 will NOT back down from fighting for their spots, quite the opposite since they can all go.

For middle schools, I don't really know how the state competition works as well because I didn't go to as competitive a middle school, but what I hear is it is heavily coach-dependent, so I'm unsure how upping the amount of teams would help things all that much (as it seems much more consistent and even less likely to change overall).

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, as I came from your HS too, but I do think there is a bit of a deeper perspective to be had *because* I came from your HS...

I definitely agree with this, and it's very unrealistic to add more teams especially with states such as Texas missing out on thier second bid. I personally believe that nats should be a representation of the best teams in the country but that's unrealistic to figure out who's the best, and this is the best option available. I guess I'm just kinda annoyed with the same teams dominating states that makes it feel hopeless and lowers overall motivation. They gave the effort and deserve to go to nats, and I guess I feel it's unfair the same teams are going year after year, even though this is the best system possible. Obviously the rise of a team like Mason is definitely possible, but with top teams getting more and more experience, these rises are being rarer, especially if teams are lacking motivation.

It's definitely possible to get a team to nats from any current state, but I feel like this task is nearly impossible without some sort of influence to motivate them beyond already extremely motivated teams.

Yeah and I guess if you somehow magically added like 10 spots somehow 15th place would be complaining.

I am from a reasonably well established Science Olympiad team so maybe my perspective is wrong, and I have definitely sometimes wished NJ had 2 bids (to the point I wrote a novel where it did, like looking back... Wow), but although it would be nice if more Nats slots were available, I think the way things are right now, it is still possible in most cases to unseat perennial champions. There are a lot of teams eligible for the Dupont Award this year, so it has to be to some degree, just based on that. Idk about other teams, but our coach concerns herself only with logistics and occasional ESing at invites, so any success our teams have is down to the students there happen to be that year. And students graduate every 4 years, so it wouldn't take long for our work ethic, demographics, tryout format, absolutely everything about our team to change. So you'd think that would mean a slightly lower ranked team could have a whioe new set of students who bring it up, or a Nats team could lose all its dedicated student and drop down a few places. We like to talk about our multi-year records but I have a lot less in common with my own school's 2011 team than I do with other current students in my state at other schools, right?

[Name]

I am from a reasonably well established Science Olympiad team so maybe my perspective is wrong, and I have definitely sometimes wished NJ had 2 bids (to the point I wrote a novel where it did, like looking back... Wow), but although it would be nice if more Nats slots were available, I think the way things are right now, it is still possible in most cases to unseat perennial champions. There are a lot of teams eligible for the Dupont Award this year, so it has to be to some degree, just based on that. Idk about other teams, but our coach concerns herself only with logistics and occasional ESing at invites, so any success our teams have is down to the students there happen to be that year. And students graduate every 4 years, so it wouldn't take long for our work ethic, demographics, tryout format, absolutely everything about our team to change. So you'd think that would mean a slightly lower ranked team could have a whioe new set of students who bring it up, or a Nats team could lose all its dedicated student and drop down a few places. We like to talk about our multi-year records but I have a lot less in common with my own school's 2011 team than I do with other current students in my state at other schools, right?

Yes it's definitely possible to unseat perennial champions and make Nationals but with some states like NY there are more then just 2 National level teams. If Ward Melville goes to Nationals, they would probably end up near the same level as Columbia and FM. Columbia could slip up, but Ward would immediately be there to replace them. (Or I guess with heli, ward slipped up and Columbia replaced them). This is shown even more in Ohio and Texas, where they have multiple top tier Nationals teams where if one slips, multiple teams are immediately ready to replace them, making it nearly impossible for a lower team to get in.

Obviously the set of students matter but this isn't what makes the big difference. I feel like no matter how bright a group of students is you need the motivation/pressure to work. For example Troy has been perennially contenting for what seems like forever now. The group of students they have have to vary and can't remain the same for so long. They have the pressure of doing well, making nats, and the peer pressure of previous very successful members and living up to expectations. For a new team, there is no pressure, and no motivation to give the effort they can give.

It's obviously possible for top teams to fall, but when it does someone will replace them after a few years and the cycle repeats

Anyways I should probably stop posting about never making nats and do something more useful

[Alex-RCHS]

I am from a reasonably well established Science Olympiad team so maybe my perspective is wrong, and I have definitely sometimes wished NJ had 2 bids (to the point I wrote a novel where it did, like looking back... Wow), but although it would be nice if more Nats slots were available, I think the way things are right now, it is still possible in most cases to unseat perennial champions. There are a lot of teams eligible for the Dupont Award this year, so it has to be to some degree, just based on that. Idk about other teams, but our coach concerns herself only with logistics and occasional ESing at invites, so any success our teams have is down to the students there happen to be that year. And students graduate every 4 years, so it wouldn't take long for our work ethic, demographics, tryout format, absolutely everything about our team to change. So you'd think that would mean a slightly lower ranked team could have a whioe new set of students who bring it up, or a Nats team could lose all its dedicated student and drop down a few places. We like to talk about our multi-year records but I have a lot less in common with my own school's 2011 team than I do with other current students in my state at other schools, right?

Yes it's definitely possible to unseat perennial champions and make Nationals but with some states like NY there are more then just 2 National level teams. If Ward Melville goes to Nationals, they would probably end up near the same level as Columbia and FM. Columbia could slip up, but Ward would immediately be there to replace them. (Or I guess with heli, ward slipped up and Columbia replaced them). This is shown even more in Ohio and Texas, where they have multiple top tier Nationals teams where if one slips, multiple teams are immediately ready to replace them, making it nearly impossible for a lower team to get in.

Sure, but other teams can work their way up to be one of those "ready to replace" teams (that usually hover around 3rd-5th at states but don't quite make nats) until they eventually make it to nats. Its certainly difficult to make it to nationals with lots of competitive teams in your state, but it's not impossible with enough motivation. You should check out Seven Lakes' results over the years: https://scioly.org/wiki/index.php/Seven ... igh_School Note they were founded in 2009.

[pb5754]

I am from a reasonably well established Science Olympiad team so maybe my perspective is wrong, and I have definitely sometimes wished NJ had 2 bids (to the point I wrote a novel where it did, like looking back... Wow), but although it would be nice if more Nats slots were available, I think the way things are right now, it is still possible in most cases to unseat perennial champions. There are a lot of teams eligible for the Dupont Award this year, so it has to be to some degree, just based on that. Idk about other teams, but our coach concerns herself only with logistics and occasional ESing at invites, so any success our teams have is down to the students there happen to be that year. And students graduate every 4 years, so it wouldn't take long for our work ethic, demographics, tryout format, absolutely everything about our team to change. So you'd think that would mean a slightly lower ranked team could have a whioe new set of students who bring it up, or a Nats team could lose all its dedicated student and drop down a few places. We like to talk about our multi-year records but I have a lot less in common with my own school's 2011 team than I do with other current students in my state at other schools, right?

Yes it's definitely possible to unseat perennial champions and make Nationals but with some states like NY there are more then just 2 National level teams. If Ward Melville goes to Nationals, they would probably end up near the same level as Columbia and FM. Columbia could slip up, but Ward would immediately be there to replace them. (Or I guess with heli, ward slipped up and Columbia replaced them). This is shown even more in Ohio and Texas, where they have multiple top tier Nationals teams where if one slips, multiple teams are immediately ready to replace them, making it nearly impossible for a lower team to get in.

Sure, but other teams can work their way up to be one of those "ready to replace" teams (that usually hover around 3rd-5th at states but don't quite make nats) until they eventually make it to nats. Its certainly difficult to make it to nationals with lots of competitive teams in your state, but it's not impossible with enough motivation. You should check out Seven Lakes' results over the years: https://scioly.org/wiki/index.php/Seven ... igh_School Note they were founded in 2009.

Wow... nats in their second year

[RyanMist]

Good luck to Gelinas and Goff at nationals