National Qualification

[wlsguy]

I think the current system has weaknesses but does not necessarily require a complete overhaul.
It has also been around for ~ 25 years and is unlikely to change regardless of what people think.

The many seems to have lost focus of the goal called out in
"Science Olympiad Tournament: To develop teamwork and cooperative learning strategies among students."

I think it would be nice if teams from other states could learn to work more collectively. This would create more competition within the States and, ultimately, make the National competition more balanced.

My advice:
If you are one of the teams that is not making it to Nationals, contact the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place team from a neighboring state and work collectively.
If you are one of the teams who is making it every year but doing poorly, contact a leading team from a state more competitive than your own and work together. Lastly, if you are one of the teams who always makes it and places in the top 10 at Nationals, Watch Out!, your competition is coming.

Good luck to everyone.

[Uncle Fester]

Well, Wisguy, that's a post we don't see too many of-- instead of hauling out the same age-old gripe for the hundredth time, actually offer some serious advice that has a pretty good likelihood of working.

Well done-- I'd hand you a website medal if it actually was my job.

But I'm sure the whining will continue.

[Castryn]

I see exactly where you're coming from Wisguy.

I think the teams should all start collaborting alot more. You don't know what you could by just trying to get to know somebody from another area and trading tips/ideas about common events.

It's as one of our 'officers' said at out first sing-up team meeting yeserday: "We here in Science Olypiad, and like a fmaily. You get to know you teammates that well. Sure we're tough and hard-working, but we have tons of fun and laugh as much as we study." (though she use different wording)

[dontsenditinthemail]

I'm torn about whether or not teams should begin collaborating more.

Part of me believes that Science Olympiad is more about learning than about winning, because in the end the knowledge and friendships will matter a whole lot more than even a national championship will.

However, the larger part of me believes that collaboration between teams is not necessary. Nobody on the Cleveland Cavaliers practices with the Orlando Magic because they don't want to help each other improve...they both want to win! I think that shows the difference in mentality between the top teams and the lower ones at nationals. The better ones aren't in it with the main goal of having fun and making friends through collaboration, they are in it to win above all else. And that, the mentality difference between the top teams and the chasers, is what keeps perennial powerhouses at the top of the game.

[Uncle Fester]

Well, heck, with that philosophy, why bother posting anything here?

There's a clear-cut difference between teenagers learning pre-existing Science and professional athletes who make millions of dollars a year (even the Detroit Lions). and I mean PRE-EXISTING. I've seen "latest designs" identical to illustrations straight out of 1820's-era engineering books.

Some years, DS posted extensive pictures and even wiring diagrams of his Mission, and did anyone beat him? No. The perfect proof that the "secrets" nonsense is exactly that, nonsense. learn all you want from anywhere you want, but unless it's applied properly or written down on the answer sheet correctly, it's not of much good. SO why did he do that? Click on Fleet 130's link to to the goals of SO.

My kids have friendships built over the years with several teams. They talk about stuff about the events (just not about what they're actually doing), and compete with each other-- FRIENDLY competition-- up to three times per season, and are still friends. No allegations of "they stole this", or "they cheated", and certainly NOBODY said "I like them, so I won't try to beat them." My kids (and the other teams too) want to win.

[dontsenditinthemail]

I happen to disagree with that philosophy when it comes to competition.

Sure, there is a time for friends and building relationships, but it is not during competition season. No State caliber football team (and yes, that is high school, not professional) tries to build relationships with other rival teams. That just isn't competition.

Now i agree building relationships is very important, enjoying life is more important than medals. However, and this is my main point, it is the lack of a universal competitive mindset that holds science olympiad tournaments, even state and national tournaments where only perhaps the top 50% of the teams are competitive, back from the rest of the competitive world.

The fact is that science olympiad, a competitive forum that gives "athletic/olympic" style medals, is not built upon a platform of competition, and it clearly shows at the weak national results (why are the same teams from the same states usually at the top, because they have mastered the competitive mindset and left the others behind). if science olympiad is to be taken as a true competition i simply think the mindset must change...athletes have it, why can't a high school science student have one too?

And by the way, being in college and coming from arguably the most competitive state in science olympiad, and having placed in the top 5 at nationals 4 times in 5 years, i promise you i had a killer-mentality when it came to science olympiad, and that is how my team won. Guess what, in college I am on the same floor as 2 of my "arch-rivals" from other schools, and we are BEST friends. There is a time for trying to make buddies, and it is after competition. So, unless science olympiad is ready to admit it is less a competition forum and more a networking opportunity (which would be fine by me), i think my comments, although blunt, are quite fair.

[blufoster6]

I believe that some teams do need to try harder to be more competitive but it's also important to hang out with the people from other teams because they can be really cool and fun, plus they could end up teaching you something. I mean why do you think that the competitions always hand out a spirit award? Plus it's one of the only awards(besides some individual events) that comes with a check. They are trying to get teams to interact more. I mean going to Nationals and concentrating only on winning? You'd be missing out on a lot of the experience that makes Nationals what it is. Don't get me wrong, the competiton is the most important part of SO but it's not everything.

[sciolykid101]

I happen to disagree with that philosophy when it comes to competition.

Sure, there is a time for friends and building relationships, but it is not during competition season. No State caliber football team (and yes, that is high school, not professional) tries to build relationships with other rival teams. That just isn't competition.

Now i agree building relationships is very important, enjoying life is more important than medals. However, and this is my main point, it is the lack of a universal competitive mindset that holds science olympiad tournaments, even state and national tournaments where only perhaps the top 50% of the teams are competitive, back from the rest of the competitive world.

The fact is that science olympiad, a competitive forum that gives "athletic/olympic" style medals, is not built upon a platform of competition, and it clearly shows at the weak national results (why are the same teams from the same states usually at the top, because they have mastered the competitive mindset and left the others behind). if science olympiad is to be taken as a true competition i simply think the mindset must change...athletes have it, why can't a high school science student have one too?

And by the way, being in college and coming from arguably the most competitive state in science olympiad, and having placed in the top 5 at nationals 4 times in 5 years, i promise you i had a killer-mentality when it came to science olympiad, and that is how my team won. Guess what, in college I am on the same floor as 2 of my "arch-rivals" from other schools, and we are BEST friends. There is a time for trying to make buddies, and it is after competition. So, unless science olympiad is ready to admit it is less a competition forum and more a networking opportunity (which would be fine by me), i think my comments, although blunt, are quite fair.

I meet new people at swap meets. I think the most fun that comes out of Science Olympiad is meeting new people.

[scienceolympiadist]

dontsenditinthemail, i'd assume it must feel different once you are out of it and in college...

[Phenylethylamine]

So, unless science olympiad is ready to admit it is less a competition forum and more a networking opportunity...

It's not that Science Olympiad is "more" a networking opportunity than a competition; the two aren't mutually exclusive.

For example, there are two junior high schools in my district; one, Gelinas (that I went to), has consistently done well at Nationals for the past several years (several top ten finishes, with the best place being 6th). The other, Murphy, placed in the top ten at States for the first time three years ago, and last year was third- the National runner-up. Gelinas has long had far more dedication from its coaches, parent helpers, etc, while the Murphy team was largely student-coached. The past few years, and especially last year, the two schools collaborated extensively- members of the Murphy team would come to Gelinas Saturday practices and use Gelinas resources, and contributed whatever materials they could, as well as helping to student-coach the Gelinas team members when they were preparing for Nationals. People from both teams became good friends, and now in my grade at the high school (Ward Melville), those friendships have carried over.

My point is, Gelinas essentially coached Murphy to be a contender in the State competition. But people at Murphy and people at Gelinas are both friends and rivals. What does Gelinas have to do now if they want to continue beating Murphy? Work harder. The point of SciO isn't to withhold information for the sake of retaining an advantage; if you're really the best (and your advantage isn't simply access to better resources), you'll be able to win regardless of how much you teach the other teams.

[Granted, both teams are from the same school district, funneling into the same high school, so there's some unity here that isn't necessarily found between any two random teams... but trust me, there's still some sense of rivalry. Sounds paradoxical, but we were cheering for all their medals same as they cheered for all of ours- while at the same time really wanting to beat each other, both overall and in the events.]

That being said, I think the current system works just fine. However, if you want to look at it in terms of actual difficulty of getting to Nationals for each given team in the country, it's far from ideal. This is simply due to the number of teams in each state- the straight-up probability of any given C team (ignoring the differences in competitiveness between teams, which adds a whole different dimension to the discussion) making Nationals in a state with 30-some teams in C Division is ten times the probability of any given C team from New York, with its approximately 300 teams in C Division. Of course, it's more complex than that, because not every team in a given state has an equal chance of advancing, not to mention powerhouses that go every year, etc. Still, the difficulty for some unnamed team in NY is vastly higher than for one in, to use Uncle Fester's earlier example, Iowa. I'm just going on basic probability here.

Even so, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just because it's non-ideal doesn't mean changing it would be at all worth the massive logistical problems involved. At least in my mind, this is just how SciO works. It's been like this for years, and hasn't collapsed or seen any weird anomalies with clueless teams winning Nats. It's okay.