National Qualification

[OlympiadLover]

I believe that the system is good as is, if the numbers of teams increase, it would be easier, but I like competitive better.

[sciolyandmathcounts]

Still, some states that don't get a 2nd slot deserve one.

[starpug]

Still, some states that don't get a 2nd slot deserve one.

How about some examples?

[dickyjones]

He gave one three posts back.

Just keep in mind, sciolyandmathcounts, that if another state had gotten two teams for nats, then you wouldn't be going this year.

[sciencegeek100]

Two problems with 2 for each state: that ends up in 90-something teams, which is way too much. Plus, do you want a state with about 15 teams to have the same teams as one with 300? There has to be some difference, even if it's the same we have now. Personally, I thought the ideas with bonus teams were good, just a little confusing.

yea, what it is, is best, or make it based on # of teams LOL 1 for alot and like 20 from california, wow... that would suck cauz i think 5 teams from our state could nationals on a given day....

[sciencegeek100]

Sorry for getting a bit off-topic here, but I'm quite new and I'm wondering how qualifying to Nationals works.

From state to nationals: I've heard it's top 2 teams in the sate (or in my case, half-state since I'm in California). Does that count as top two school teams, or top two for each event (so, suppose my school did poorly but one person won an event, would that person advance to nationals)?

Thanks in advance.

at state in california you must win at the NORTH or SOUTH state competition in order to make it, my school did with the closest margin of victory in about 10 years... LoL

[sciencegeek100]

Still, some states that don't get a 2nd slot deserve one.

How about some examples?

i think the states that placed top 3 in the previous year deserve a bonus team so 3 if they have 2 and 2 if they usually are the only 1... dont know why, either that or they get a bye into the next year's national tournament regardless of how they do at the state competition...

[jazzy009]

i think the states that placed top 3 in the previous year deserve a bonus team so 3 if they have 2 and 2 if they usually are the only 1... dont know why, either that or they get a bye into the next year's national tournament regardless of how they do at the state competition...

Yes because that's a legitimate process. Maybe, if enacted, there won't be seasons like the 1996 one, you'll just bye into nats!

[zyzzyva98]

1996? Anyone want to explain?

[packer-backer91]

To have only the best teams qualifying for nationals all test/build its should be the same at State level in every State [Exact same for everybody]. So each state would report each teams scores in the event to be put in a computer that would rank every team that went to State's for the whole nation. Then based on the ranks in each event take the 60 teams with the lowest [best] ranks and total score. It may be more work for the national people but that ensures that at Nationals are the 60 BEST schools in the country instead of 1 or 2 of the top from each state. No offense but if a team from OH,PA,NY,CA,MI comes in 4 or 5 could beat most of the small State schools is that fare to the States with large numbers of teams? So to make the tournament really about the best teams then standard test are the only way to do this. I do understand the current system too they Nat board does not want to have 7 or 8 teams potentially from one state then have none from other states.

[zyzzyva98]

I disagree, it's like the all-star game in baseball or hockey. There's always a representative from each team. How would you feel if your team did not get to send anyone to an all-star game? Similarly, I feel that each state should send at least one representative. I did not like missing out on nationals the way we did this year, but I would feel bad for the teams that won if they didn't get a chance to go. Could there be one school from each state and then the ten that fared the best after that? Possibly, but I think that this plan would make things too complicated. I'm in favor of the current system.

[haven chuck]

Also, think about the Olympics. For swimming for instance, each country can only send a max of 2 people per event. Could the 7th place person at US Qualifiers beat teh best person from a small African country who went to the Olympics? Probably. However, what makes the Olympics so cool is that almost the whole world is represented. If there was no cap on the numbers of swimmers sent per country, then it would wind up being about 20 countries in all the swimming events. The same thing would happen to Science Olympiad if there was no 1-2 team limit per state.

[JustDroobles]

Also, think about the Olympics. For swimming for instance, each country can only send a max of 2 people per event. Could the 7th place person at US Qualifiers beat teh best person from a small African country who went to the Olympics? Probably. However, what makes the Olympics so cool is that almost the whole world is represented. If there was no cap on the numbers of swimmers sent per country, then it would wind up being about 20 countries in all the swimming events. The same thing would happen to Science Olympiad if there was no 1-2 team limit per state.

That's because the Olympics are a competition between nations. Is the National Science Olympiad competition supposed to be a competition between states, or is it supposed to be a competition between the nation's most competitive teams? Or are nationals just supposed to determine the single best team? It's hard to come up with a good system for who should qualify when competitors don't even agree on what the competition is about. When it comes down to it, everyone will just support the system that gives them the most likely chance of going to nationals.

[fleet130]

Is the National Science Olympiad competition supposed to be a competition between states, or is it supposed to be a competition between the nation's most competitive teams?

The answer to that question should be fairly obvious by the way the way invitations are currently given out.

Science Olympiads goal is to get as many students as possible interested and involved in science. Taking invitations away from less competitive states and giving them to more competitive states would detract from that goal.

[Phenylethylamine]

So each state would report each teams scores in the event to be put in a computer that would rank every team that went to State's for the whole nation.

Events from different states are not necessarily comparable. It's not practically feasible to give the same test in every state.

Nothing new is being brought up in this thread. You might want to read what others have said before making your argument.