Scioly.org

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this...

So I just finished my last year of Science Olympiad, which was my 2nd year overall in Division B. In the two years I competed for a team that consistently places in the bottom 10, sometimes in bottom 5 and fails to win a medal most years. The area I'm in is a very uncompetitive region inside of a very competitive state(Socal). Even the dominating High School in my area failed to make it to top 20 this year. My question is, why? What makes San Diego, Orange County, and LA so much more "competitive?" We're all in the same state. Is it because of funding? The coaches? Or the students? Something I would like to bring up is Dana.(I'm not very familiar with what happens at the regional, only with the placings, so disclaimer if I don't understand anything) They compete in a region that performs similar to mine, but still they still place in top 15 every year, sometimes in the top 10. So it's obvious a school in an uncompetitive region can still perform well.

Los Angeles actually has two separate venues: Occidental College and Antelope Valley. Dana goes to Antelope Valley.

One thing I've noticed is that successful Division B teams usually have a large, invested body of coaches. In Division C, you tend to see a lot more teams that have hardly any coach involvement.

Also, most successful teams(/regions/states) remain successful. I know that if I work hard enough I can make nationals, but that is because I've been on a team that has made nationals. And it's not just me: everyone on my team knows that. Someone on a team that has never placed in the top 10 (or 20 or 30. etc.) at states doesn't know that. And by someone, I guess I mean everyone. The easiest way to be on "a successful team" is to be on a team that has performed well in the (recent) past.

Another thing I've notice over the years is that having a large group of experienced 8th and 9th graders also is necessary to have a successful team. The one year we lost even 2 of the 13 ninth graders the teams performance significantly decreased. This could be due to other reasons but I'm relatively convinced of this.

freed2003 wrote:I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this...

So I just finished my last year of Science Olympiad, which was my 2nd year overall in Division B. In the two years I competed for a team that consistently places in the bottom 10, sometimes in bottom 5 and fails to win a medal most years. The area I'm in is a very uncompetitive region inside of a very competitive state(Socal). Even the dominating High School in my area failed to make it to top 20 this year. My question is, why? What makes San Diego, Orange County, and LA so much more "competitive?" We're all in the same state. Is it because of funding? The coaches? Or the students? Something I would like to bring up is Dana.(I'm not very familiar with what happens at the regional, only with the placings, so disclaimer if I don't understand anything) They compete in a region that performs similar to mine, but still they still place in top 15 every year, sometimes in the top 10. So it's obvious a school in an uncompetitive region can still perform well.

What makes a team top 15 at SoCal state? Probably the coaches. What makes a team number one? Probably the students. Funding: unlikely, with the exception of going to invitationals (though as Lakeshore continues to prove, a lack of invitationals can be overcome with enough stockpiled experience and coaches).

The students are the most important part; there are plenty of stories of teams from uncompetitive regions or states quickly rising to the top due to persistence and motivation among the students (see Baton Rouge 2004, though this is Div C, and numerous other examples at the state level in Div B, though I can't quickly think of one in Div B at nationals).

ScottMaurer19 wrote:Another thing I've notice over the years is that having a large group of experienced 8th and 9th graders also is necessary to have a successful team. The one year we lost even 2 of the 13 ninth graders the teams performance significantly decreased. This could be due to other reasons but I'm relatively convinced of this.

13 ninth graders on a B team? Surely, spread over 3 B teams.......

Well the thing is that my school's been competing for 7+ years and haven't been able to crack top 20 except for 2015. If the coaches are the problem, does that mean our school is just doomed forever?
And if you look at schools like Oak Valley or pacific trails it just feels discouraging.

freed2003 wrote:Well the thing is that my school's been competing for 7+ years and haven't been able to crack top 20 except for 2015. If the coaches are the problem, does that mean our school is just doomed forever?
And if you look at schools like Oak Valley or pacific trails it just feels discouraging.

Community and dedication. I have felt the same way before - being discouraged by other teams. As my coach always puts it: "Solon and Mentor aren't demigods". In Ohio, these are the two highest performing teams (not forgetting you, Mason, Centerville, Westlake, Chardon!). You have to keep in mind that everyone is new to Science Olympiad by design - they have all made their binders and designs based on the same information available to everyone. When everyone involved on a team puts in the effort, nationals is possible.

(PS. my school consistently places 30-35 out of 40 at states. I don't really know what I'm talking about but am talking from an underdog to an underdog.)

rfscoach wrote:

ScottMaurer19 wrote:Another thing I've notice over the years is that having a large group of experienced 8th and 9th graders also is necessary to have a successful team. The one year we lost even 2 of the 13 ninth graders the teams performance significantly decreased. This could be due to other reasons but I'm relatively convinced of this.

13 ninth graders on a B team? Surely, spread over 3 B teams.......

Only spread over two teams with alternates

As for "being doomed" because of coaches... The coaches, specifically div C, dont have nearly as much impact as the students self motivation. Some people on the teams that place low simply just don't spend as much time or don't have partners that spend time on their events.

ScottMaurer19 wrote:

rfscoach wrote:

ScottMaurer19 wrote:Another thing I've notice over the years is that having a large group of experienced 8th and 9th graders also is necessary to have a successful team. The one year we lost even 2 of the 13 ninth graders the teams performance significantly decreased. This could be due to other reasons but I'm relatively convinced of this.

13 ninth graders on a B team? Surely, spread over 3 B teams.......

Only spread over two teams with alternates

As for "being doomed" because of coaches... The coaches, specifically div C, dont have nearly as much impact as the students self motivation. Some people on the teams that place low simply just don't spend as much time or don't have partners that spend time on their events.

Also, to some extent, team culture can be a big driving force. For you, Scott, being from Solon, I'm sure that the fact that you guys are consistently very high placing at nats probably drives kids because they know they can achieve this or they don't want to be the kids who don't place very high at nats