Scioly.org

IHateClouds wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 6:06 pm i think this also speaks to a broader issue with running events two years in a row to begin with. i strongly dislike the fact that events are in for more than one year and the only event i had that didnt change, EXPD (and meteo to some extent) is not my favorite event because after doing it for so long its hard to improve. even with rule tweaks, having events in longer than a year discourages exploration of more topics

I don't think changing all 23 events every year would be practical. The number of new events each year under the current system can already be a challenge for small/new teams. Acquiring materials, finding resources, and coaching for 23 new events every year just would not be feasible for these schools. It would be stretch even for programs like mine.

For the NSO Board Members:

Thank you for being flexible and updating all of us (including alumni) regarding the situation with COVID-19. However, I have some questions in reusing the rules:

-As an exam author, I tend to plan out what events I am plan on writing an exam for since I also have to balance Science Olympiad with my college schedule. If I'm planning on writing for Anatomy and Physiology, should I plan on writing questions for the same systems (2020 Systems - Integumentary, Skeletal, and Muscular) or the systems for the next rotation (Nervous, Endocrine, and Sense Organs)? In other words, is it only the events that will remain the same (2020 Events) or is everything about the event staying the same (same systems for anatomy, same topics in Chem Lab, etc.)

-Will the competitors be challenged with new additions and slight modifications to the 2020 Rules (e.g. will the same prebuild for Protein Modeling be used for 2021, or will they be challenged with a harder prebuild?), or will they be expected to focus on perfecting their events from 2020? I believe that the 2021 Season will be unique in Science Olympiad history since the teams already know next season's rules way before the season officially starts (in comparison to knowing the rules in September or after the Summer Institute). I predict that if no changes or modifications are applied to the 2020 Rules, the 2021 Season may become the most competitive season in Science Olympiad history (since the teams will be using the 2020 Rules to prep during this spring and the summer). In short, some builds, binders, and cheat sheets may be already prepared before the season officially starts.

Once again, thank you for keeping us all updated, and I am sorry for everyone who has been affected by COVID-19. For seniors: even though your time in Division C has ended, Division D awaits you. You will be contributing ingenious exams and guidance to younger competitors if you choose to pursue Science Olympiad in college. For juniors and underclassman: Use this instance as motivation to do even better next year. If NSO does decide to completely reuse the 2020 Rules, you can start your preparations early.

Stay safe everyone, and I'm curious to see what the 2021 Season brings.

nicholasmaurer wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 6:15 pm I don't think changing all 23 events every year would be practical. The number of new events each year under the current system can already be a challenge for small/new teams. Acquiring materials, finding resources, and coaching for 23 new events every year just would not be feasible for these schools. It would be stretch even for programs like mine.

lol i didnt even consider that...i do agree that it would be hard for small schools but i also feel like it would be difficult for new schools to compete against kids who have already done the event for a year :/ honestly im in favor of keeping the same event but rotating topic but i do get that does have similar problems

As a student going from Division B to Division C, I don't like the fact that they are keeping the rules. At the same time, I am going to be at a newly built school that will most definitely have to compete with the likes of Seven Lakes High, LASA, Clements, Tompkins, etc.

If the rules are kept the same, the other schools will probably have a large advantage on us because we won't have much if any veteran members on our team if any will even be rezoned at our school.

Now, I will say that I looked at the next year's events and I don't exactly know what I would want to choose. I don't see much events that I would like.


In any case, I hope my second year in SciOly will be better than it was this year.

chalker wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 6:02 pm One other comment I forgot to make: we have to think about the 90+% of competitors / teams that don't make it past regionals, not just the 120 teams that make it to Nationals (although we take those into consideration too). Those of you here on SciOly are in the top 1% of SO competitors in terms of passion and interest in the program. The vast majority of competitors won't be thinking about SO during the summer and spending a ton of time refining their devices or topic knowledge (although it'd be great if they did!)

Wouldn't this just widen the gap between the teams that don't make it past regionals and the competitive teams, making it harder for teams to raise their standing/earn individual medals? There is already not much parity in the world of Science Olympiad, so the assumption that most teams won't work over the summer seems to me like an argument for changing the events, not against it.

One general policy many of you might not be aware of is that, in general, every year we keep ~50% of the events the same, make minor changes to ~25% of them, and major changes/replacements to ~25% of them. This policy has been in place for almost the entirety of SO for the purposes of ensuring there isn't too much change from year to year.

nmurali2002 wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 6:01 pm

karmanyaahm wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 5:48 pm I am overall in favor of changing the rules just because things will get boring, and top building events will be hard to differentiate.

But, there is one aspect of this that I find appealing. This will let teams show their true potential based on the amount of time they put in, and not based on talent, guidance or other available resources. I understand that these will still play a big role, but that role will be reduced. The best part though, is that there will be a clear differentiating factor between the top teams, who put in the hours during the summer, and other teams who are either not able to, or just value relaxation over Science Olympiad. This will be a unique opportunity in the history of Science Olympiad to see how things play out when for the middle teams - not the top 3, not the bottom 3 - with the purely the amount of effort they put in, and this can truly differentiate the real winners.

That's the problem. People have travel plans over the summer that they've had for months. Teachers, who often advise SciOly teams, might have kids at home - who will take care of them while they go to run a SciOly practice? Top placements will come down to sheer random chance for both build and study events.

I understand that this does not take into account all the problems that this can create, but just to present my perspective:
Science Olympiad is a competition and people who have access to resources that don't cost money like time, should be able to make good use of them. If someone's not able to get time during the summer or teachers to supervise practices, it would be an unfortunate circumstance to be in their shoes at the moment.

chalker wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 6:47 pm One general policy many of you might not be aware of is that, in general, every year we keep ~50% of the events the same, make minor changes to ~25% of them, and major changes/replacements to ~25% of them. This policy has been in place for almost the entirety of SO for the purposes of ensuring there isn't too much change from year to year.

And the average SciOly competitor on a full team does 3 events. That means they have 1-2 events that they need to slightly or moderately alter, and an event that they need to spend a lot of time on. During 20-21, nobody will be doing anything new.

So in the spirit of "replaying" events, I can assume conflicts will be completely the same on the nationals schedule? Changing those up could be a way to make a significant difference without changing too much, although some people will probably get thrown under the bus.

l0lit wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 6:56 pm So in the spirit of "replaying" events, I can assume conflicts will be completely the same on the nationals schedule? Changing those up could be a way to make a significant difference without changing too much, although some people will probably get thrown under the bus.

ill just start by saying i have no idea, but i dont see the event schedule changing too much. im not sure how official they are but i've seen event logistics manuals (https://www.soinc.org/sites/default/fil ... 100819.pdf) that specify some suggested conflicts like between similar events so that it might be considered in schedules? i think its mainly so that people can specialize w/o having a bunch of conflicts.