National Qualification

User avatar
gneissisnice
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 927
Joined: March 11th, 2008, 9:10 am
Division: Grad
State: NY
Location: Long Island

Re: National Qualification

Postby gneissisnice » October 11th, 2009, 4:09 pm

Yeah, before an event, i often clear up things when other teams ask me.
Like food science one year, while waiting outside, another team asked me about certain vitamins or something, so I helped them. And another time, a team didnt have a rocks and minerals book, so we lent them our extra (we had a book and binder, just in case, though we rarely used the book).
2009 events:
Fossils: 1st @ reg. 3rd @ states (stupid dinosaurs...) 5th @ nats.
Dynamic: 1st @ reg. 19thish @ states, 18th @ nats
Herpetology (NOT the study of herpes): NA
Enviro Chem: 39th @ states =(
Cell Bio: 9th @ reg. 18th @ nats
Remote: 6th @ states 3rd @ Nats
Ecology: 5th @ Nats

User avatar
Kokonilly
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 631
Joined: January 11th, 2009, 7:59 am
Division: Grad
State: CA
Location: a dumpster

Re: National Qualification

Postby Kokonilly » October 14th, 2009, 7:42 pm

Yeah. Come on, you can't be a total jerk, even though it's highly competitive. If someone's struggling, you help them out.

dontsenditinthemail
Member
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: November 26th, 2006, 9:22 am
State: -
Location: Somehwere deep within the

Re: National Qualification

Postby dontsenditinthemail » October 15th, 2009, 9:00 am

I guess my biggest problem is the sharing of information or helping other teams. In fact, if it helps your team grow at a faster rate, working with others is probably a good idea (although my team never really contacted other teams to learn together or anything like that). And no, nobody should be a jerk at competition. The little things before the test should be cleared up - answering those questions isn't going to change any outcomes anyway.

My bigger problem is the mindset in science olympiad. People don't want to win enough. People aren't hunting for a championship like they are in any high school sport and 75% of other academic teams. It seems that the vast majority of teams are concerned with having fun above all else. Now please don't misquote me, having fun is the most important part of Science Olympiad, but fun should be coming naturally from learning and climbing the ranks. Enjoyment in Science Olympiad, it seems for most, doesn't come from a killer mindset and a desire to win state but from other aspects of this organization.

And that brings me to my final point, I really don't care (especially considering I am now an alum), if that is the direction in which Science Olympiad moves, but if a majority of the teams don't have that killer mentality, if a majority of teams at nationals aren't competitive and wouldn't place in the top 5 in my old state, if a majority of teams look at science olympiad only as fun and forget that it is also a competition, then i simply see the paradox that presents itself. Science Olympiad cannot consider itself a competition forum the way it does now if it continues to be filled with teams that display the previously mentioned characteristics.

User avatar
Kokonilly
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 631
Joined: January 11th, 2009, 7:59 am
Division: Grad
State: CA
Location: a dumpster

Re: National Qualification

Postby Kokonilly » October 15th, 2009, 11:07 am

My bigger problem is the mindset in science olympiad. People don't want to win enough.
If it makes you feel any better, my school's been making up slogans. Last year it was 'Augusta or Busta'. I don't know what it is this year, but our school is very competitive and does want to win. (The weird thing is, our coaches don't care if we win or not. Oh, well. We push ourselves enough.)

User avatar
Phenylethylamine
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 1075
Joined: January 8th, 2009, 4:47 pm
Division: Grad
State: MA
Location: Harvard University

Re: National Qualification

Postby Phenylethylamine » October 15th, 2009, 12:59 pm

And that brings me to my final point, I really don't care (especially considering I am now an alum), if that is the direction in which Science Olympiad moves, but if a majority of the teams don't have that killer mentality, if a majority of teams at nationals aren't competitive and wouldn't place in the top 5 in my old state, if a majority of teams look at science olympiad only as fun and forget that it is also a competition, then i simply see the paradox that presents itself. Science Olympiad cannot consider itself a competition forum the way it does now if it continues to be filled with teams that display the previously mentioned characteristics.
I don't think it's a paradox; it simply means that the few teams that are in it more for the competition than the experience are more likely to win- the outcome they want- while the teams that are less focused on competition are less likely to put in the effort necessary to win- and they're not as concerned by that. There are a lot of teams that don't have the resources or put in the effort to be truly competitive, but that hurts only them; there are sufficiently many teams that do put in that level of effort that there can be a real competition at the top, which doesn't touch the teams that are less involved.
I also seriously doubt that many teams look at SciO only as fun and "forget" it's a competition.
Protein Modeling Event Supervisor 2015
MA State Science Olympiad Tournament
MIT Invitational Tournament
--
Ward Melville High School Science Olympiad 2010-2012
Paul J Gelinas JHS Science Olympiad 2007-2009

User avatar
Deeisenberg
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 237
Joined: April 29th, 2007, 7:23 pm
Division: Grad
State: PA
Location: Stony Brook University
Contact:

Re: National Qualification

Postby Deeisenberg » October 17th, 2009, 10:38 am

My bigger problem is the mindset in science olympiad. People don't want to win enough. People aren't hunting for a championship like they are in any high school sport and 75% of other academic teams. It seems that the vast majority of teams are concerned with having fun above all else. Now please don't misquote me, having fun is the most important part of Science Olympiad, but fun should be coming naturally from learning and climbing the ranks. Enjoyment in Science Olympiad, it seems for most, doesn't come from a killer mindset and a desire to win state but from other aspects of this organization.

And that brings me to my final point, I really don't care (especially considering I am now an alum), if that is the direction in which Science Olympiad moves, but if a majority of the teams don't have that killer mentality, if a majority of teams at nationals aren't competitive and wouldn't place in the top 5 in my old state, if a majority of teams look at science olympiad only as fun and forget that it is also a competition, then i simply see the paradox that presents itself. Science Olympiad cannot consider itself a competition forum the way it does now if it continues to be filled with teams that display the previously mentioned characteristics.
There are plenty of teams that have a a huge number of teams with a highly competitive mindset at various regionals. There are plenty (though fewer) of teams with the same sort of mindset at states. There are (depending on the year) about 10-20 teams that go into nationals with a highly competitive mindset.
Competitiveness is at all levels, all different levels. Now my region is a bad example (I think that it's fair to say the region that I am in is one of the 2 or three most competitive regionals in the country for C division with 2 teams having made top 10 at nationals consistently, and at least 2 other teams quite possibly capable of doing so if they could make it past states.) but if you go to a random region in the country, there will usually be competition to get either 1st, or top 10, or get to states, what have you. At any given state competition, there will be some teams vying for 1st, others for 2nd, others for top 5 or 10 etc. At nationals this trend continues.
Just because most teams aren't competitive at ALL levels, doesn't mean they aren't competitive. In high school sports competitions, there are some teams that consistently want to do well at districts (if that). There are other teams that are consistently very good that may aim (realistically, not pep talk sort of "aiming") to rank first in their state every year. Does that mean that other teams with their sights set lower aren't competitive at their own respective levels? No it doesn't.
Also look at teams when they place in whatever they consider to be a very good place for them at any competition. Are they or are they not clearly ecstatic at their accomplishment?
Every team has it's goals (clearly stated or not), every team gets enjoyment from fulfilling them. These goals vary. The thing is that all of the other sorts of fun are much more universal across teams in my opinion. The goals of these things don't have to be stated and so they are all more readily comparable than the various competition goals of each team.
Also people tend to speak in a much more competitive manner within their own teams. As with everything people change what they say and how they say it based on audience and venue. I can't really describe this in depth, it varies by team, person, situation, many things. I do think however it generally holds true, and that if people think about that, they will agree (with the last part, you may or may not agree with my other opinions expressed in this post).
Events: Herpetology, Fossils, Entomology, Rocks & Minerals, Ornithology, Ecology
Nationals 2008: 1st in Herpetology
Nationals 2009: 1st in Herpetology, 2nd in Fossils

Harriton Class of 2010

AIME15
Member
Member
Posts: 1
Joined: October 25th, 2009, 8:15 pm
Division: B
State: CA

Re: National Qualification

Postby AIME15 » October 25th, 2009, 8:30 pm

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.
Woohoo, I have NO scioly experience whatsoever :)

andrewwski
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 952
Joined: January 12th, 2007, 7:36 pm
Division: Grad
State: -

Re: National Qualification

Postby andrewwski » October 25th, 2009, 8:36 pm

It's team based. Top one or two teams from each state (depending on the state and its size) go to nationals.

Dark Sabre
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 705
Joined: January 4th, 2004, 5:53 pm
Division: Grad
State: KY
Location: Louisville, KY
Contact:

Re: National Qualification

Postby Dark Sabre » October 25th, 2009, 8:37 pm

You can read about why they chose to do it that way here: http://soinc.org/allstar_teams

fleet130
Staff Emeritus
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 433
Joined: November 10th, 2001, 3:06 pm
State: -
Location: Mare Tranquillitatis
Contact:

Re: National Qualification

Postby fleet130 » October 25th, 2009, 10:01 pm

I'm wondering how qualifying to Nationals works.
This is very basically how teams are chosen. Since each organization may establish their own procedures/requirements, there may be many exceptions.

The host institution and Science Olympiad National Executive Board determine how many teams can be accommodated at a national tournament. Each state is given one slot and, if any slots remain, one additional slot is given to states with the highest enrollment.

Each state has an organization which nominates team(s) to represent the state at the national tournament. How this is done is left up to each state. Without exception, it is currently by holding a state competition/tournament.

States that can't accommodate all their teams in a single tournament must devise a procedure for choosing who will participate in the the state tournament. This is done by dividing the state into regions. The state organization decides how many teams from each region may participate in the state tournament.

These regions select the teams to compete at the state tournament. Some states have independent regional organizations; while, in others the regions are managed by the state organization.

Note that California has chosen to divide their state into 2 regions and to send the top team from each region to the national tournament. This will work as long as they have sufficient enrollment to receive 2 invitations. If their enrollment should fall below that required for 2 invitations (not likely in the foreseeable future), they would have to decide how they would choose one team.
Information expressed here is solely the opinion of the author. Any similarity to that of the management or any official instrument is purely coincidental! Doing Science Olympiad since 1987!


Return to “2010 Nationals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest