National Qualification

[SOninja]

A lot of the comments here about the true mission and beauty of SciO have been so motivating and nice...
i don't have any wise philosophy to add here...
i think any points i wanted to add have already been mad (and presented better than if it had been me).
I think Murphy and Gelinas working together was awesome and at this year's competition, i will be cheering for our rival teams as well.
(then after the ceremony my hands will hurt and i will lose my voice like i usually do )

EDIT: grammar

[Phenylethylamine]

I think Murphy and Gelinas working together was awesome and at this year's competition, i will be cheering for our rival teams as well.
(then after the ceremony my hands will hurt and i will lose my voice like i usually do )

Giving our voices for a good cause xD

[MBombardier]

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.

Good word, wisguy.

The number of teams sent to Nationals from each state is determined by the number of SO teams in each state. WA sends one team to Nationals, and would have to have at least 15 more teams in the state to qualify to send another. It's like how many representatives are sent to the US Congress from each state--it depends on the population of the state.

Our team consistently performs well, and we help other teams that we compete with at both the regional and state levels. The same tide floats all boats. The better the other teams are, the better we have to be. At Nationals in the spring there was a team from Florida staying at the same hotel, going to their first Nationals. Even as we studied and boned up for the competition, we were helping that team and sharing resources with them.

The competition is getting fierce, and we may not win State this year. And that's okay, because it will spur us on to come back better than ever next year. What's important is the learning, the teamwork, and the competition. These are skills and disciplines that are of importance our whole life long.

[Deeisenberg]

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..

This isn't completely false, however it certainly misses several key points. I will agree that there are certainly some teams that are in Science Olympiad primarily just to have a bit of fun and get as far as they can with how well they do at their top level being no big deal. This doesn't however mean that the top scioly teams care about nothing besides winning. I mean I would consider us a team that is very competitive at all levels of competition, and yes, we certainly have the goal of doing as well as possible at all levels of competition. That doesn't mean that doing well is our only goal. If we didn't have fun doing it, then (at least in the vast majority of cases) we wouldn't be in science olympiad. I would like to think that at all levels of competitiveness those on all teams also care about fun, and making friends both within their school and with persons in other schools. Of course doing extremely well at competition is great, and we certainly will do everything we can to achieve it, but it isn't the only thing that matters.

As for the cooperation aspect, there is plenty of inter school cooperation even with the most competitive teams. Last year I talked with someone at Grand Haven quite a bit about herpetology, what we were both doing for it, how olympiad in general worked at our respective schools, politics, etc. This doesn't mean that we didn't care (or at least it didn't mean that I didn't care I can't really speak for the other person though I assume they would agree) who did better at the national level. I have also discussed ornithology and fossils with people at several other schools that are very competitive at the national level. I know the same to be true between other people at my school and people at other very competitive schools as well. The way I see it there are no "secrets" that will help you in any event, what will help you is just putting in the work. This doesn't mean that I or anyone else is going to publish their fossils binder so that everyone can copy out of it. It just means that a discussion on what you've been studying, what SORTS of things you are gathering data about, what tests have been like, and so on is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and that I know of people at various levels of competitiveness who do it.

[Phenylethylamine]

Well said. That's what I was trying to say- albeit much better than I could have lol- about fun and competition not being mutually exclusive.

[gneissisnice]

Yeah, before an event, i often clear up things when other teams ask me.
Like food science one year, while waiting outside, another team asked me about certain vitamins or something, so I helped them. And another time, a team didnt have a rocks and minerals book, so we lent them our extra (we had a book and binder, just in case, though we rarely used the book).

[Kokonilly]

Yeah. Come on, you can't be a total jerk, even though it's highly competitive. If someone's struggling, you help them out.

[dontsenditinthemail]

I guess my biggest problem is the sharing of information or helping other teams. In fact, if it helps your team grow at a faster rate, working with others is probably a good idea (although my team never really contacted other teams to learn together or anything like that). And no, nobody should be a jerk at competition. The little things before the test should be cleared up - answering those questions isn't going to change any outcomes anyway.

My bigger problem is the mindset in science olympiad. People don't want to win enough. People aren't hunting for a championship like they are in any high school sport and 75% of other academic teams. It seems that the vast majority of teams are concerned with having fun above all else. Now please don't misquote me, having fun is the most important part of Science Olympiad, but fun should be coming naturally from learning and climbing the ranks. Enjoyment in Science Olympiad, it seems for most, doesn't come from a killer mindset and a desire to win state but from other aspects of this organization.

And that brings me to my final point, I really don't care (especially considering I am now an alum), if that is the direction in which Science Olympiad moves, but if a majority of the teams don't have that killer mentality, if a majority of teams at nationals aren't competitive and wouldn't place in the top 5 in my old state, if a majority of teams look at science olympiad only as fun and forget that it is also a competition, then i simply see the paradox that presents itself. Science Olympiad cannot consider itself a competition forum the way it does now if it continues to be filled with teams that display the previously mentioned characteristics.

[Kokonilly]

My bigger problem is the mindset in science olympiad. People don't want to win enough.

If it makes you feel any better, my school's been making up slogans. Last year it was 'Augusta or Busta'. I don't know what it is this year, but our school is very competitive and does want to win. (The weird thing is, our coaches don't care if we win or not. Oh, well. We push ourselves enough.)

[Phenylethylamine]

And that brings me to my final point, I really don't care (especially considering I am now an alum), if that is the direction in which Science Olympiad moves, but if a majority of the teams don't have that killer mentality, if a majority of teams at nationals aren't competitive and wouldn't place in the top 5 in my old state, if a majority of teams look at science olympiad only as fun and forget that it is also a competition, then i simply see the paradox that presents itself. Science Olympiad cannot consider itself a competition forum the way it does now if it continues to be filled with teams that display the previously mentioned characteristics.

I don't think it's a paradox; it simply means that the few teams that are in it more for the competition than the experience are more likely to win- the outcome they want- while the teams that are less focused on competition are less likely to put in the effort necessary to win- and they're not as concerned by that. There are a lot of teams that don't have the resources or put in the effort to be truly competitive, but that hurts only them; there are sufficiently many teams that do put in that level of effort that there can be a real competition at the top, which doesn't touch the teams that are less involved.
I also seriously doubt that many teams look at SciO only as fun and "forget" it's a competition.