Ohio 2015

Asteroidea
Member
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: March 3rd, 2013, 7:10 pm
Division: C
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Ohio 2015

Post by Asteroidea » April 11th, 2015, 6:34 pm

Woah didn't expect that for Div C. Regardless congrats to Centerville and Mentor!! Especially Mentor!

ScaredPotatoe
Member
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: May 5th, 2014, 7:25 pm
Division: C
State: PA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Ohio 2015

Post by ScaredPotatoe » April 11th, 2015, 6:45 pm

Wow congrats to centerville.
MIT/Soup/regionals/states/nationals
Forensics:1/?/?/?
Towers:7/?/?
Helicopters:17/?/?

User avatar
EastStroudsburg13
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 3113
Joined: January 17th, 2009, 7:32 am
Division: Grad
State: MD
Location: At work trying to be a real adult
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 47 times
Contact:

Re: Ohio 2015

Post by EastStroudsburg13 » April 11th, 2015, 8:42 pm

magicalforest wrote:The We the People competition has an interesting system for qualifying for nationals. Their format is very similar to Science Olympiad- the national competition hosts 60 teams, and the State tournaments are spread out over several months leading up to nationals. Each of the 50 states is represented by the 1st place team, so there are 10 spots left for nationals. These 10 spots are known as "Wild Cards," given to teams that had very close scores to the 1st place team (such as losing by only 1-2 points) and also randomly given to States to send a second team. This format would also help introduce many new teams to the national competition.

Just a suggestion! Their website can be found here: http://www.civiced.org/programs/wtp

EDIT: This system does have a lot of drawbacks. As pointed out by Crazy Puny Man, it would create more anxiety if the States sending two teams was uncertain. The current system, while having its flaws, at least is consistent and systematic.
Wild Card systems have been brought up as suggestions nearly every year on the forums (usually around this time, when state competitions are happening). It's just too difficult to a) organize, and b) keep consistent. There are always going to be scenarios where one team would say "we deserved to go", and at least this way, that is kept to a minimum.

Also keep in mind that Nationals is NOT intended to be a competition of the 60 best teams in the country. It is intended to be a competition of the best teams from each state. So unfortunately for third-place teams, it's not looking like nationals spots are going to be given to three teams in any state in the forseeable future.
East Stroudsburg South Class of 2012, Alumnus of JT Lambert, Drexel University Class of 2017

Helpful Links
Wiki
Wiki Pages that Need Work
FAQ and SciOly FAQ Wiki
Chat (See IRC Wiki for more info)
BBCode Wiki


So long, and thanks for all the Future Dictator titles!

User avatar
boomvroomshroom
Member
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: February 19th, 2015, 5:10 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Ohio 2015

Post by boomvroomshroom » April 12th, 2015, 3:00 pm

meteorology125 wrote:Here are the results: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/conte ... byoNB?dl=1

Solon and Mentor Memorial are going to nationals for division B. Westlake LBMS was one point away from going to nationals. As a member of Westlake's team, this is one of the most disappointing things ever. Westlake has never been to nationals and it is extremely disappointing. I think this should bring up the point that the way to qualify for nationals is flawed. In a state like Ohio, there are more than two teams that should go to nationals. Many teams in Ohio are a lot more qualified to go to nationals than many other teams in other states. I think Science Olympiad should consider increasing the number of teams advancing to nationals in competitive states like Ohio.
Same in CA. Not trying to be judgmental, but there are some amazing teams in CA that never make it to Nats, ever. Meanwhile (not naming any names) there are some schools at Nats that don't even compete in every event. I'm not saying that those schools shouldn't be allowed to compete, but it's like they don't even care. Unfortunately there's not enough room for so many schools, and of course Scioly has to be fair to every state.

User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4250
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Ohio 2015

Post by Unome » April 12th, 2015, 3:24 pm

boomvroomshroom wrote:
meteorology125 wrote:Here are the results: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/conte ... byoNB?dl=1

Solon and Mentor Memorial are going to nationals for division B. Westlake LBMS was one point away from going to nationals. As a member of Westlake's team, this is one of the most disappointing things ever. Westlake has never been to nationals and it is extremely disappointing. I think this should bring up the point that the way to qualify for nationals is flawed. In a state like Ohio, there are more than two teams that should go to nationals. Many teams in Ohio are a lot more qualified to go to nationals than many other teams in other states. I think Science Olympiad should consider increasing the number of teams advancing to nationals in competitive states like Ohio.
Same in CA. Not trying to be judgmental, but there are some amazing teams in CA that never make it to Nats, ever. Meanwhile (not naming any names) there are some schools at Nats that don't even compete in every event. I'm not saying that those schools shouldn't be allowed to compete, but it's like they don't even care. Unfortunately there's not enough room for so many schools, and of course Scioly has to be fair to every state.
Maybe a FAQ would be useful, since these types of questions seem to come up every year.
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

jbt22
Member
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: April 13th, 2015, 9:03 am
Division: Grad
State: OH
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Ohio 2015

Post by jbt22 » April 13th, 2015, 9:14 am

I have an idea which would allow more competitive teams to make it to nationals without exceeding the maximum capacity of 60 teams in each division. The US could be divided into, say, 10 districts, which each would consist of a number of states whose total SO member population would sum to approximately 700 teams. There would then be a district competition which precedes the national competition in which the top 4-7 teams from each state (as determined from the each state’s state tournament) compete in their corresponding district competition, with the top 6 teams in each district then advancing to the national competition. In this way, more competitive teams from each state would be permitted to advance and the national competition wouldn't necessarily be restricted to 1 or 2 teams from each state. It would also make the national competition much more intense, as the competition level would be heightened significantly from the influx of really great 3rd-6th place state finishers at many of the most competitive SO states (such as Ohio, California, Michigan, etc.). What do you guys think about this idea?

P.S. The number of teams in each district was not chosen arbitrarily. If we wanted to have an equal number of teams in each district, we would the total number of teams (6921) divided by the number of districts (10), which gives approximately 700 teams in each district.

User avatar
boomvroomshroom
Member
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: February 19th, 2015, 5:10 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Ohio 2015

Post by boomvroomshroom » April 13th, 2015, 9:59 am

jbt22 wrote:I have an idea which would allow more competitive teams to make it to nationals without exceeding the maximum capacity of 60 teams in each division. The US could be divided into, say, 10 districts, which each would consist of a number of states whose total SO member population would sum to approximately 700 teams. There would then be a district competition which precedes the national competition in which the top 4-7 teams from each state (as determined from the each state’s state tournament) compete in their corresponding district competition, with the top 6 teams in each district then advancing to the national competition. In this way, more competitive teams from each state would be permitted to advance and the national competition wouldn't necessarily be restricted to 1 or 2 teams from each state. It would also make the national competition much more intense, as the competition level would be heightened significantly from the influx of really great 3rd-6th place state finishers at many of the most competitive SO states (such as Ohio, California, Michigan, etc.). What do you guys think about this idea?

P.S. The number of teams in each district was not chosen arbitrarily. If we wanted to have an equal number of teams in each district, we would the total number of teams (6921) divided by the number of districts (10), which gives approximately 700 teams in each district.
ROTC actually does something like this.
Unfortunately it's not very likely that SO would end up carrying out this idea. The point of this all isn't really to be fair to the competition, but to be fair to the states. I personally think it's a nice idea, but then there would be states that would never send a team to Nats. And that's what SO wants - a team from every state, not just a team from every general geographic location (I'm assuming this is how you'll divide up the districts).
Given the states that normally dominate (CA, OH, NY, PA, TX, etc.) they'll overshadow the bordering states that probably have less funding. Some schools have dominated their own highly competitive states for years (Troy, Centerville, Harriton, etc.); imagine if other states were lumped under that umbrella, too.
Besides, the Parade of States is a fun tradition :)

Milankovitch1
Member
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: November 15th, 2014, 10:19 am
Division: Grad
State: OH
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Ohio 2015

Post by Milankovitch1 » April 13th, 2015, 1:01 pm

Ohio Div B
If you took the Anatomy and/or Meteorology test in Columbus, let me know what you thought of the tests. What were the biggest surprise questions for you? Thanks
Play Hard - Have Fun

BWAPP2001
Member
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: April 13th, 2015, 1:21 pm
Division: B
State: OH
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Ohio 2015

Post by BWAPP2001 » April 13th, 2015, 1:31 pm

Milankovitch1 wrote:Ohio Div B
If you took the Anatomy and/or Meteorology test in Columbus, let me know what you thought of the tests. What were the biggest surprise questions for you? Thanks
I took the anatomy test. To me, it wasn't really much of a surprise. All the questions seemed pretty fair, except the obvious bias against Michigan. I didn't like the massive number of immunoglobin and cell type questions though, and the disease questions. I may have a bad memory, but I don't remember a single question about immunodeficiencies or cardiovascular diseases. Good luck at nationals!(At least, I think you're from Memorial.)

User avatar
John Richardsim
Wiki Moderator
Wiki Moderator
Posts: 736
Joined: February 26th, 2014, 10:54 am
Division: Grad
State: MI
Location: Robinson Twp.
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Ohio 2015

Post by John Richardsim » April 13th, 2015, 1:48 pm

boomvroomshroom wrote:
jbt22 wrote:I have an idea which would allow more competitive teams to make it to nationals without exceeding the maximum capacity of 60 teams in each division. The US could be divided into, say, 10 districts, which each would consist of a number of states whose total SO member population would sum to approximately 700 teams. There would then be a district competition which precedes the national competition in which the top 4-7 teams from each state (as determined from the each state’s state tournament) compete in their corresponding district competition, with the top 6 teams in each district then advancing to the national competition. In this way, more competitive teams from each state would be permitted to advance and the national competition wouldn't necessarily be restricted to 1 or 2 teams from each state. It would also make the national competition much more intense, as the competition level would be heightened significantly from the influx of really great 3rd-6th place state finishers at many of the most competitive SO states (such as Ohio, California, Michigan, etc.). What do you guys think about this idea?

P.S. The number of teams in each district was not chosen arbitrarily. If we wanted to have an equal number of teams in each district, we would the total number of teams (6921) divided by the number of districts (10), which gives approximately 700 teams in each district.
ROTC actually does something like this.
Unfortunately it's not very likely that SO would end up carrying out this idea. The point of this all isn't really to be fair to the competition, but to be fair to the states. I personally think it's a nice idea, but then there would be states that would never send a team to Nats. And that's what SO wants - a team from every state, not just a team from every general geographic location (I'm assuming this is how you'll divide up the districts).
Given the states that normally dominate (CA, OH, NY, PA, TX, etc.) they'll overshadow the bordering states that probably have less funding. Some schools have dominated their own highly competitive states for years (Troy, Centerville, Harriton, etc.); imagine if other states were lumped under that umbrella, too.
Besides, the Parade of States is a fun tradition :)
Yeah, whereas this is a good idea conceptually, it does create distance issues for each of the ten district competitions. For example, if we lump Washington, Oregon, and California (which is already split into North and South), and then have it be hosted down in SoCal would be kind of difficult for teams in Washington. And how exactly would a system like this work for Alaska and Hawaii...
Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice

Locked

Return to “2015 Invitationals, Regionals, and States”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest