Will/Did you make it to nationals?

[paleonaps]

I guess no one here is a supporter of the "All-Star Team" idea, then?

[starpug]

I guess no one here is a supporter of the "All-Star Team" idea, then?

It's not very practical logistically as soinc.org outlines.

In addition, there are plenty of individual science competitions, Chem Olympiad, Bio Olympiad, Physics Olympiad, and ISTS to name a few, if you don't want to have to depend on your team. I personally think that the team aspect of Science Olympiad is what makes it so great, I mean in football or baseball, each division doesn't send a team of the best players from every team in the division into the playoffs. They send the team with the best record. They have a All Star Games, but those are completely separate from the playoffs and are done more for the amusement of the fans than they are done to give good players from small market teams a chance to compete on a national stage.

[AlphaTauri]

I guess no one here is a supporter of the "All-Star Team" idea, then?

I'm not too fond of the "All-Star team" approach...even though it would have meant that I would have gotten to go to Nationals twice (for winning an event at States). I think the true focus of Science Olympiad is the team aspect of it, not just excelling in a single event. IMO, it's better to only let the best teams advance, because it emphasizes teamwork and prioritizing, while an "All-Star team" approach would likely result in people focusing on a single event that would be their best bet to advance.

[Frogger4907]

I guess no one here is a supporter of the "All-Star Team" idea, then?

I'm not too fond of the "All-Star team" approach...even though it would have meant that I would have gotten to go to Nationals twice (for winning an event at States). I think the true focus of Science Olympiad is the team aspect of it, not just excelling in a single event. IMO, it's better to only let the best teams advance, because it emphasizes teamwork and prioritizing, while an "All-Star team" approach would likely result in people focusing on a single event that would be their best bet to advance.

It is much harder for a team to be a Nationally competitive team do to the coaching and other aspects that are need for a good team. But as an individual all u have to do is study... a lot.

[Kokonilly]

I would personally not support an All-Star team type thing, because the great thing about Science Olympiad is that you get to work with other people and it really fosters great friendships (...not to be cheesy). You're not going to have any fun if you sit and study all day, take a test, and do well (or don't). The most fun times in SciO are from the people and the inside jokes and staying at school for absurdly long periods of time, which really make the activity great.

[lolliexdd]

I would personally not support an All-Star team type thing, because the great thing about Science Olympiad is that you get to work with other people and it really fosters great friendships (...not to be cheesy). You're not going to have any fun if you sit and study all day, take a test, and do well (or don't). The most fun times in SciO are from the people and the inside jokes and staying at school for absurdly long periods of time, which really make the activity great.

As it is right now, my team is almost the opposite of that. I usually work on my events alone because my partners usually aren't at practice. So I basically am just "sitting and studying". -____-

I think the true focus of Science Olympiad is the team aspect of it, not just excelling in a single event. IMO, it's better to only let the best teams advance, because it emphasizes teamwork and prioritizing, while an "All-Star team" approach would likely result in people focusing on a single event that would be their best bet to advance.

Sometimes a person's only chance to "shine" is focusing on their events to medal, because most of the time you can tell how well your own team will do. So I think that the latter is already being used by many people in science olympiad.

Aside from that, I do think the teamwork is one of the best parts of Science O. I remember last year my team felt almost like a "second family". :]

[personasaurus rex]

Sometimes a person's only chance to "shine" is focusing on their events to medal, because most of the time you can tell how well your own team will do. So I think that the latter is already being used by many people in science olympiad.

Agreed. For example, when I was on B Division, our team had no chance of even placing in the top half, and the people on the team were mostly weirdos, so I'd grab my friends, and medal in my own events. Team bonding was NOT a concern.

However, once I got to C Division, that totally changed because our team has a nationals record and we do amazingly at states every year. Then bonding with the team and teamwork became more of a priority than personal medals, although they're nice too.

[JKrafsur]

National Science O Tournament team numbers:

http://www.soinc.org/sites/default/file ... -%20WI.pdf

[3slh9]

I would personally not support an All-Star team type thing, because the great thing about Science Olympiad is that you get to work with other people and it really fosters great friendships (...not to be cheesy). You're not going to have any fun if you sit and study all day, take a test, and do well (or don't). The most fun times in SciO are from the people and the inside jokes and staying at school for absurdly long periods of time, which really make the activity great.

I know for my team that those who bond together as a group do so much better at the competitions than the few who don't. We have a ton of fun at practices and when the season is over, those practices are really missed. We really are just one big happy family. I think the team approach is so much better than being alone.

[Kokonilly]

No confirmed second bid for Minnesota...