Scioly.org

I agree 100%.

SiegeLord wrote:

But seriously, SO nats is worth it, even if you dont win anything, you'll still have a great time.

Some people, myself included, do not think two days in the spring is the entirety of the SO. The preparation for it, the studying, the building and the testing is far more important. It is about making hypotheses and testing them. Science Olympiad is mostly about Science, not the Olympiad for these people. You really are deluded if you think those 5 minutes you spend competing with your device are more important than the hours upon hours you have spent designing and building and testing it. Those 5 minutes will come and go, but the knowledge imparted during your studies will last for years, and perhaps for the entirety of your life. Those 5 minutes matter so little, that you might as well not do them at all.

What you're saying is the equivalent of being a player on a hockey team that wins their conference, crushes every team in the first three rounds of the playoffs, and then decides not to show up for the Stanley Cup finals.

I cannot stand how people are brushing off nationals. Don't you guys get that there's thousands of teams that would die for the chance to just make states? Not everyone is a top team, but that doesn't mean they put in any less effort. Fine, say nationals is stupid, blah blah blah. Because I'd do anything for a chance to get there. And I know that regardless of how hard we try, we're not ending up that far. But yet some of those who are privileged enough to have that chance just ignore it.

If I made nationals...or even states, I'd try my hardest in the time before hand to be as competitive as I can. But once I got there, it's time for a break. I'd just enjoy every minute of it. It's got to be a great experience, regardless of whether or not you come in first or last.

i wish my team could of gone to national i would almost do anything for that chance oh well... and yes thats very true i put so much work into my events still got 7th...oh well

dickyjones wrote: ...

Yep, I agree with that.

andrewwski wrote: Don't you guys get that there's thousands of teams that would die for the chance to just make states?

I do get that. And I state that their intentions are misguided. If your only goal is to advance to the states or nationals, then you are going have to be competitive. And if you are going to be competitive, you are not going to be willing to take risks or innovate as much as if you just relaxed and instead started not caring so much about your performance during the competition, but rather started caring about what you get out of preparing for it. If you are focusing solely on the competition, then you won't be discussing your designs with other teams because you'll be afraid of giving away your trade secrets. Ever hear of Scientists doing that in the real world? Real Science is about collaboration and discussion. Taking myself for example, sure I could have built a sure-fire and perhaps a sure-win treb. But I would have learned nothing doing that. Instead, I built ~20 different designs, and in the process learned so much physics that I ended knowing more physics than people who took the AP class for it. At the same time, some people who have gotten top-10 placements in the event at Nationals were completely ignorant of some basics of the mechanical systems. What is more important to you, a hunk of metal on your neck, or a wealth of knowledge and experience? Now, if you manage to do both, then good for you, but clearly, only 10 out of 6000 teams are going to be top 10 in the nation.

So just chill. Not everyone will go to Nationals, or to States, that is a fact. If your team is unlikely to make Nationals (or States), then stop being so competitive and focus on the other benefits of being in SO: working on projects with like-minded friends in your Middle/High schools and learning a good bunch of Science. Read the brochure of the Science Olympiad again:

Science Olympiad Brochure wrote: Science Olympiad is a national non-profit organization dedicated to improving the quality of K-12 science education, increasing male, female and minority interest in science, creating a technologically-literate workforce and providing recognition for outstanding achievement by both students and teachers. These goals are achieved by participating in Science Olympiad tournaments and non-competitive events, incorporating Science Olympiad into classroom curriculum and attending teacher training institutes.

The goal of SO is education. Competitions and such are only the means of achieving that, not the ends. You are not a loser if you didn't medal or make States or Nationals: if you have obtained knowledge and skill in Science, then you have won anyway.

But building events are different than study events. Yes, for building events, im sure youre right. But for study events, it involves knowing basically everything about a certain topic. And even if theres stuff i dont need to know for the event, i take the time to learn it anyway, because its interesting. By studying hard to get a medal, I also come away with a ton of knowledge about my topic. And after the event is gone, i still remember. Theres no reason why you cant aim for first and still take away something from scio.

thats so much like my expirence with science word. I reviewed and learned so much about general science i was surprized by myself. imidiatly after doing the event i knew that my partner and i did pretty much the best we could of (which was 4th) but we were still happy and event though we didnt medal i felt happy thay we did it at all. But you do have to admit you're at least a little happy when you get a medal that you worked for.

I'm not entirely qualified to say anything here, but I've been to Nationals, and last year I won a medal in Chem Lab. All the studying that I did for my AP Chem test? That much less that I need to review for SO. Studying reactions, etc. for SO? There was a section on the AP test that that knowledge was very useful for.

So, I've learned plenty from doing SO. I still wouldn't trade my trip to Nationals for anything, because I got closer to my team members, met some cool people, and just had a blast. Would I miss AP tests for it? Absolutely. Like people have said, there are make-up dates.

SiegeLord wrote:

Science Olympiad Brochure wrote: Science Olympiad is a national non-profit organization dedicated to improving the quality of K-12 science education, increasing male, female and minority interest in science, creating a technologically-literate workforce and providing recognition for outstanding achievement by both students and teachers. These goals are achieved by participating in Science Olympiad tournaments and non-competitive events, incorporating Science Olympiad into classroom curriculum and attending teacher training institutes.

The goal of SO is education. Competitions and such are only the means of achieving that, not the ends. You are not a loser if you didn't medal or make States or Nationals: if you have obtained knowledge and skill in Science, then you have won anyway.

I agree with the sentiment, but competition is a way of testing just how much you know about a subject. Plus, people go to competitions for the same reason that they play sports. They enjoy doing well, and competing against other people, (and the recognition for doing well isn't bad either.) It's kind of like the real Olympics. People will go just for the experience, even if they don't make it to the finals of their event. It's why people are willing to stand for 5 hours just so they can march in the opening ceremony. The athletes involved may miss out on tournaments where they could make money 9in this analogy, representing AP testing), but they choose to go to the Olympics.

I'm not sure exactly which side I'm arguing against. I'm not even sure if any of this was helpful. I just felt like getting my thoughts out there.

I don't have to worry about this, seeing as that my team probably won't make it to nats.

binary010101 wrote:I don't have to worry about this, seeing as that my team probably won't make it to nats.

ditto. I'm only in 8th grade but I would gladly skip AP tests to go to nationals. Unless I had soccer, in which case I would go to soccer. Ooops, guess that doesn't make me a true science olympian.

I'd just like to point out that having gone to Nationals twice doesn't make me any less eager to go again... and yes, it was a great experience both times; clearly not the be-all and end-all to SciO, especially since I still vastly prefer the campus of SUNY New Paltz to either of the schools Nats was at, but definitely worth the work and everything.
Most people are very interested in/excited about Nationals, some aren't, everyone is entitled to their own opinion... personally, I do think it's worth it, but I wouldn't argue with someone who doesn't think that way.