Replaying Events for 2021

For anything Science Olympiad-related that might not fall under a specific event or competition.
sciolyperson1
Member
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: April 23rd, 2018, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by sciolyperson1 » March 24th, 2020, 4:14 pm

AstroKing wrote:
March 24th, 2020, 1:33 pm
2020 EVENTS ARE OFFICIALLY BEING REPLAYED FOR THE 2021 SCIOLY YEAR!!

https://www.soinc.org/sites/default/fil ... 031820.pdf
It's already been discussed in the CMS hangouts for a while now.
These users thanked the author sciolyperson1 for the post (total 2):
Fallsbury (March 24th, 2020, 5:22 pm) • hmmm (March 24th, 2020, 8:26 pm)

User avatar
FiveW's
Member
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: April 9th, 2019, 9:24 am
Division: C
State: IN
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by FiveW's » March 25th, 2020, 3:38 pm

This has probably already been asked, but from what I can tell this means that Boom size requirements and gravity vehicle scoring will stay the same. Correct?
Avocado's Law

User avatar
Creationist127
Member
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: August 14th, 2018, 3:21 pm
Division: C
State: IN
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Location: Fluctuating between Kanto, Johto, Alola, and Galar
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by Creationist127 » March 25th, 2020, 3:50 pm

FiveW's wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 3:38 pm
This has probably already been asked, but from what I can tell this means that Boom size requirements and gravity vehicle scoring will stay the same. Correct?
SOInc has said that they will "adjust" the rules for various events, though only a couple specific examples are given. I would assume (and hope) that both boom and gravity will be changed enough to merit some device redesign, but nobody can really say for sure.
2018: Hovercraft, Thermo, Coaster, Solar System
2019: Thermo, Circuit Lab, Sounds, Wright Stuff
2020: Circuit Lab, Wright Stuff, Machines
2021: Circuit Lab, Machines, WIDI, Wright Stuff

2021 grind starts now... and no excuses about not knowing the rules yet!

User avatar
MoMoney$$$;)0)
Member
Member
Posts: 152
Joined: January 14th, 2019, 6:38 pm
Division: C
State: OH
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Location: In Cleveland Somewhere
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by MoMoney$$$;)0) » March 25th, 2020, 4:01 pm

Creationist127 wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 3:50 pm
FiveW's wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 3:38 pm
This has probably already been asked, but from what I can tell this means that Boom size requirements and gravity vehicle scoring will stay the same. Correct?
SOInc has said that they will "adjust" the rules for various events, though only a couple specific examples are given. I would assume (and hope) that both boom and gravity will be changed enough to merit some device redesign, but nobody can really say for sure.
I feel that there is a need for merit in the changing of your device from last year, since it will give a further objective in the event itself.
Division C - Northeast Ohio
Gravity Vehicle
Machines
Detector Building
Circuit Lab
Protein Modeling


2019-2020 Medal Count: 5 :cry:
"Don't be upset by the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do'
Memberships: Builder Cult

sciolyperson1
Member
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: April 23rd, 2018, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by sciolyperson1 » March 25th, 2020, 4:37 pm

MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 4:01 pm
Creationist127 wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 3:50 pm
FiveW's wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 3:38 pm
This has probably already been asked, but from what I can tell this means that Boom size requirements and gravity vehicle scoring will stay the same. Correct?
SOInc has said that they will "adjust" the rules for various events, though only a couple specific examples are given. I would assume (and hope) that both boom and gravity will be changed enough to merit some device redesign, but nobody can really say for sure.
I feel that there is a need for merit in the changing of your device from last year, since it will give a further objective in the event itself.
The whole point of "replaying" 2020 rules is to allow for less well-funded teams, which were unable to test their devices and use their binders and study materials to use them this year. Adjusting the rules for events like builds not only defeats the purpose of allowing reused builds, but disadvantages teams which have lost coaches and lost funding. Removing, or switching out topics may not be great for these teams, but adding on topics allows both teams which have and have not competed to learn a larger variety of material and allow supervisors to write more challenging tests. This could be in the form of combining freshwater and saltwater topics for water quality, adding a system to anat, or simply adding topics which can be tested to events like road.

The forums community here is a large part of participants, but not diverse, as many of the less well off teams aren't active on forums, so opinions expressed by many here, which although seem like the majority, may not be.

Although personally I do wish there would be changes to events, I don't think changing specs on builds would benefit the Science Olympiad community as a whole, which I'm sure people like bear would agree. However, changing a way an event is scored, like weighing the time component of gravity more, or changing changing how the detector build is scored, would be beneficial. Changes like these would need to benefit the scoring distribution for teams, as I'm sure most people would agree with, scores for builds will be too close together next year.

I do hope that they go over score distributions for certain events, however. If you take a look at Princeton Score Distributions:
Boomilever: extremely skewed right. Many teams have scores between 0 and 1000.
Detector: extremely skewed left, primarily due to perfected builds.
Gravity: Extremely, extremely skewed right. Just luck.
PPP: Half of all teams at the invitational got between 5.5 seconds and 11 seconds.
Wright Stuff: skewed right. Most teams struggled to get anything more than 20 seconds.

Ideally, there would be a uniform or normal distribution (which is the case for most study events), but build events' rules need work in order to prevent their placements relying on luck too much.
These users thanked the author sciolyperson1 for the post (total 11):
bearasauras (March 25th, 2020, 4:43 pm) • EwwPhysics (March 25th, 2020, 4:53 pm) • MadCow2357 (March 25th, 2020, 5:00 pm) • SilverBreeze (March 25th, 2020, 5:04 pm) • pepperonipi (March 25th, 2020, 5:09 pm) • MoMoney$$$;)0) (March 25th, 2020, 5:48 pm) • glaucophane (March 25th, 2020, 6:27 pm) • Giantpants (March 26th, 2020, 5:58 am) • gz839918 (March 26th, 2020, 10:44 am) • Unome (March 26th, 2020, 10:45 am) and one more user

User avatar
pepperonipi
Wiki Moderator
Wiki Moderator
Posts: 158
Joined: January 21st, 2019, 11:38 am
Division: C
State: FL
Location: adding wiki templates lol
Has thanked: 106 times
Been thanked: 130 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by pepperonipi » March 25th, 2020, 4:50 pm

Here's GGSO distributions, just as another example of what sciolyperson is saying. Basically everything he said about the builds scores applies again to this invitational.
These users thanked the author pepperonipi for the post:
MadCow2357 (March 25th, 2020, 5:00 pm)
i eat a lot of pizza!!
no seriously help me

Boca Raton Community High School
My Wiki Page | School Wiki Page | WikiProject Tournaments of States | Pi-Bot

2019: Code, Fermi, Thermo
2019 Trials: WTF (MIT), Detector (Nationals)
2020: Detector, Orni, Code (Substitution: Penn)
2020 Trials: Data Sci (Princeton)

LIPX3
Member
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: January 10th, 2016, 8:41 am
Division: C
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by LIPX3 » March 25th, 2020, 7:53 pm

sciolyperson1 wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 4:37 pm
MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 4:01 pm
Creationist127 wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 3:50 pm


SOInc has said that they will "adjust" the rules for various events, though only a couple specific examples are given. I would assume (and hope) that both boom and gravity will be changed enough to merit some device redesign, but nobody can really say for sure.
I feel that there is a need for merit in the changing of your device from last year, since it will give a further objective in the event itself.
The whole point of "replaying" 2020 rules is to allow for less well-funded teams, which were unable to test their devices and use their binders and study materials to use them this year. Adjusting the rules for events like builds not only defeats the purpose of allowing reused builds, but disadvantages teams which have lost coaches and lost funding. Removing, or switching out topics may not be great for these teams, but adding on topics allows both teams which have and have not competed to learn a larger variety of material and allow supervisors to write more challenging tests. This could be in the form of combining freshwater and saltwater topics for water quality, adding a system to anat, or simply adding topics which can be tested to events like road.

The forums community here is a large part of participants, but not diverse, as many of the less well off teams aren't active on forums, so opinions expressed by many here, which although seem like the majority, may not be.

Although personally I do wish there would be changes to events, I don't think changing specs on builds would benefit the Science Olympiad community as a whole, which I'm sure people like bear would agree. However, changing a way an event is scored, like weighing the time component of gravity more, or changing changing how the detector build is scored, would be beneficial. Changes like these would need to benefit the scoring distribution for teams, as I'm sure most people would agree with, scores for builds will be too close together next year.

I do hope that they go over score distributions for certain events, however. If you take a look at Princeton Score Distributions:
Boomilever: extremely skewed right. Many teams have scores between 0 and 1000.
Detector: extremely skewed left, primarily due to perfected builds.
Gravity: Extremely, extremely skewed right. Just luck.
PPP: Half of all teams at the invitational got between 5.5 seconds and 11 seconds.
Wright Stuff: skewed right. Most teams struggled to get anything more than 20 seconds.

Ideally, there would be a uniform or normal distribution (which is the case for most study events), but build events' rules need work in order to prevent their placements relying on luck too much.
I agree with what you're saying, but aren't your directions the wrong direction - Detector appears to be skewed right

User avatar
hmmm
Member
Member
Posts: 135
Joined: January 10th, 2019, 2:33 pm
Division: C
State: NJ
Location: the universe
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by hmmm » March 25th, 2020, 7:57 pm

LIPX3 wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 7:53 pm
sciolyperson1 wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 4:37 pm
MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 4:01 pm


I feel that there is a need for merit in the changing of your device from last year, since it will give a further objective in the event itself.
The whole point of "replaying" 2020 rules is to allow for less well-funded teams, which were unable to test their devices and use their binders and study materials to use them this year. Adjusting the rules for events like builds not only defeats the purpose of allowing reused builds, but disadvantages teams which have lost coaches and lost funding. Removing, or switching out topics may not be great for these teams, but adding on topics allows both teams which have and have not competed to learn a larger variety of material and allow supervisors to write more challenging tests. This could be in the form of combining freshwater and saltwater topics for water quality, adding a system to anat, or simply adding topics which can be tested to events like road.

The forums community here is a large part of participants, but not diverse, as many of the less well off teams aren't active on forums, so opinions expressed by many here, which although seem like the majority, may not be.

Although personally I do wish there would be changes to events, I don't think changing specs on builds would benefit the Science Olympiad community as a whole, which I'm sure people like bear would agree. However, changing a way an event is scored, like weighing the time component of gravity more, or changing changing how the detector build is scored, would be beneficial. Changes like these would need to benefit the scoring distribution for teams, as I'm sure most people would agree with, scores for builds will be too close together next year.

I do hope that they go over score distributions for certain events, however. If you take a look at Princeton Score Distributions:
Boomilever: extremely skewed right. Many teams have scores between 0 and 1000.
Detector: extremely skewed left, primarily due to perfected builds.
Gravity: Extremely, extremely skewed right. Just luck.
PPP: Half of all teams at the invitational got between 5.5 seconds and 11 seconds.
Wright Stuff: skewed right. Most teams struggled to get anything more than 20 seconds.

Ideally, there would be a uniform or normal distribution (which is the case for most study events), but build events' rules need work in order to prevent their placements relying on luck too much.
I agree with what you're saying, but aren't your directions the wrong direction - Detector appears to be skewed right
Skew is the direction the "tail" of the graph points, not the "head"
These users thanked the author hmmm for the post (total 4):
sciolyperson1 (March 25th, 2020, 8:00 pm) • SilverBreeze (March 25th, 2020, 8:14 pm) • Mr.Epithelium (March 25th, 2020, 9:18 pm) • MoMoney$$$;)0) (March 26th, 2020, 9:29 am)
Community 2017-2019
WWP North 2019-2020
2nd Place Water Quality 2019
Rocks and Minerals, Ecology
Disease Detectives, Fossils, Game On, Water Quality
2019-2020:
Dynamic Planet, Fossils, Ornithology, Water Quality
Wiki Userpage
Constantly Late Sassy #142

User avatar
MoMoney$$$;)0)
Member
Member
Posts: 152
Joined: January 14th, 2019, 6:38 pm
Division: C
State: OH
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Location: In Cleveland Somewhere
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by MoMoney$$$;)0) » March 26th, 2020, 9:44 am

I feel that scores at the Solon invitational, which is one of the most competitive invitationals in my region; had awfully bad score curves. You can find raw scores here. For example, detector building ~20 of the teams had a score above 100 points, so it was heavily towards the left, while events like circuit lab where heavily pushed to the right, with about 100 point difference between 1st and 10th place. I feel like looking at the graphs at all of the invitational raw scores, you should be able to deduct which events need modification in the rules, and which events are all right and can retain rules.
Division C - Northeast Ohio
Gravity Vehicle
Machines
Detector Building
Circuit Lab
Protein Modeling


2019-2020 Medal Count: 5 :cry:
"Don't be upset by the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do'
Memberships: Builder Cult

NewFlyer20002
Member
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: October 24th, 2018, 8:54 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by NewFlyer20002 » March 26th, 2020, 10:16 am

The way I see it, either replay the season or continue to the next SO cycle. Most of the ones who seem to be commenting have realistic chances at going to Nationals. The rules can be modified for Nationals to make things more challenging/competitive. For the rest of us, just getting past regionals and making it to States is reason to celebrate our "heros". How many schools did not compete in Regionals or States this year? Of those teams, how many fly gliders at 18 seconds or more this year? Or make Boomilevers that can hold 15kg? Or flew WS as specified in the rules? I favor a replay to give those who did not get through Regionals/States the oppourtunity to display their efforts and hard work. This years rising 8th graders and graduating seniors are most disappointed since they are moving on. That alone will change the make up of next years teams and ability.

Replay the year and don't be afraid of the events being more competitive. Instead of being the biggest fish in the pond, now you get to feel like the small fish in the ocean and get pushed to be even better. It will build a character that will benefit you in the future. ;-)

Stay safe everyone.
NewFlyer20002
These users thanked the author NewFlyer20002 for the post (total 4):
bearasauras (March 26th, 2020, 10:21 am) • MoMoney$$$;)0) (March 26th, 2020, 10:34 am) • Tailsfan101 (March 26th, 2020, 10:38 am) • lars (April 16th, 2020, 2:01 pm)

Post Reply

Return to “General Competition”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests