Ohio 2011

hmcginny
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: February 28th, 2011, 6:27 pm
Division: Grad
State: PA
Location: Penn

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby hmcginny » May 1st, 2011, 9:58 am

does anyone happen to know which instruments were used by the top teams in Sounds of Music?
Harriton 2013 (Captain 2012-2013)
Penn 2017

2014 PA State Compound Machines Supervisor

Past Events: Fermi, Thermo, WIDI, Maglev, TPS, Chem Lab, Mission, Sounds, Trajectory, Mousetrap, etc.

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2086
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby chalker » May 1st, 2011, 10:05 am

French_Toast wrote:I've gotta ask, how did Ohio, the best state in the country, manage to screw up out 2 events and start late for the awards ceremony... With the resources available at OSU, surely we could've found more people to grade tests to start the awards ceremony at the scheduled time. Northmont did it, Wright State did as well if I remember right. Heck, West Liberty started early! It's really kinda sad.

And at the state level, especially in Ohio, you'd think we could make sure the event supervisors read the rules and run the competition appropriately. How hard is it to actually run towers? What would have happened if Mentor had been close enough to Solon that had Wind Power and Towers been run correctly and counted(the entire event, in the case of Wind), that they would have went to nationals. I know for sure that they would've been more than a little uspet.

Ohio's the best. We should expect our state tournament, if nothing else, to match our teams' success.

(I wasn't upset with EVERYTHING, by the way. The Anatomy, Disease, Microbe, and TPS tests were all very well written, and the proctors there were helpful. I just think everybody's entire team should've had the ability to experience that)


Having helped run the Ohio State tournament for many years now, I concur that we had a lot of problems this year for some reason. I didn't even mention the countless other arbitrations and issues that came up with regards to other events. It was VERY stressful in headquarters for most of the afternoon.

I don't believe the awards ceremony started late. It was scheduled to start at 6:30 and we sent the first batch of scores over around 6:15. (Note that from 6-6:30 was a planned presentation about OSU). In fact, I have a time-stamped printout in front of me that shows that the B division scores were finalized at 6:27. There was 1 event in C division we were waiting on, but we finalized C division at 7:02PM according to my printout and there was never a pause in the awards ceremony.

As an aside, I also helped run the Wright State invitational and there were far few teams competing. I assume the same for the Northmont and WLS events as well.

Believe it or not, it's actually quite hard to find event supervisors to run events at states. Unlike most invitationals, we generally don't have the coaches run events (there are some exceptions to this), and thus it's often difficult to pull in people to volunteer their time for some strange thing called Science Olympiad. Lynn does a great job finding supervisors and providing us with information and guidance far in advance of the tournament (include copies of the rules and multiple notices to read and note changes from last year), but like the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. At the end of the day, mistakes and bad things happen - it's a part of every SO tournament since we are all human. This year for some reason it was just a little more severe and visible than in past years.

Will we learn from this? Yes. Will we strive to implement process improvements? Of course. Could we use help next year from people like yourself that are passionate about SO? Absolutely!

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2086
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby chalker » May 1st, 2011, 10:07 am

Kovu wrote:Anybody know when they are going to post the results my team didnt stay for the awards


They'll probably go up early next week on the OSU website, but I'll see if I can post them here too somehow later today. Is there a particular event you are interested in knowing about?

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

dholdgreve
Member
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: February 6th, 2006, 2:20 pm
Division: B
State: -

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby dholdgreve » May 1st, 2011, 11:57 am

chalker wrote:
dholdgreve wrote:What happened in C towers that would kick it to a trial event?


Towers is a walk-in event for both divisions (and run by the same people). On the B schedule we had the event ending at 1:50PM, but on the C schedule we accidentally showed it going until 2:50PM (I take partially responsibility for this since I was one of a handful of people who reviewed the event schedule before it was posted). The event supervisor broke down the equipment at 2PM, dropped the scores off and left. Several teams showed up expecting to compete in the 2-2:50PM time slot and found an empty room. Since we weren't able to allow them to compete, it was only fair to not have the event count towards the team scores.

I just checked (Note we did NOT know this at the tournament yesterday and it did NOT factor into our decision), but if we had kept it as a regular event, the top 6 teams would still be in the the same order, and thus everyone who got a team trophy would have still gotten the same trophy. At least one of the top 10 teams was unable to compete, but even if they had scored 1st in the event they still wouldn't have bumped up enough in the standings to get a trophy.


Wow... that's a shocker... You'd think that it would be assumed that at a State level competition, where teams have worked their bottoms off to be there, that possibly one, maybe even 2 teams, might not compete in an event, but if there are more scores than that that are still blank, the E/C would check with SOMEBODY... ANYBODY! before just breaking his stuff down and leaving! Especially if he has proctored previously... It 's not about whether this changed a TEAM's ranking, it's about all the hard work that the skipped students did, and then could not test... No excuse for this.
... Sorry, just my opinion. Understandable at a competition like WSU... first year, many new E/Cs, intended as a practice competition for Nat's, just and Invitational, but not at State Final that has been run for 26 years... The bugs should be gone.
Dan Holdgreve
Northmont Science Olympiad

Dedicated to the Memory of Len Joeris
"For the betterment of Science"

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2086
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby chalker » May 1st, 2011, 12:44 pm

dholdgreve wrote: Understandable at a competition like WSU... first year, many new E/Cs, intended as a practice competition for Nat's, just and Invitational, but not at State Final that has been run for 26 years... The bugs should be gone.


I think you are being too idealistic. There will always be 'bugs' in any large scale endeavor, no more how prepared or practiced you are. Please keep in mind that the majority of the supervisors are volunteers who aren't intimately involved in SO, don't necessarily understand the 'bigger picture' and are generous enough to give up many hours preparing and running an event on a Saturday for this.

I've NEVER seen or heard of a SO tournament or invitational that didn't have 'bugs' pop up (and I've been involved in a lot of them, ranging from invitationals, regionals, states and nationals). However in most cases they are just glossed over or quietly resolved without being brought to the attention of most people (yes even at Nationals every year, where you have the most dedicated people involved and more than enough resources). This is part of the reason why SO has a formal arbitration policy and procedures.

I have a strong belief that overall transparency is a good thing for the program, which is why I'm sharing details that oftentimes at other tournaments wouldn't be announced so publicly. And part of the reason for that is the tendency of many people to play Sunday morning arm-chair quarterback and think that 'these types of things wouldn't happen if I was in charge'.

I know we all are passionate about SO and want it to be the best it possibly can, but there also needs to be a healthy dose of realism and acceptance of human errors. As I've mentioned many times before, we are always looking for volunteers to help out with the tournament and run events. There is contact info on the state website if you'd like to help ensure next year's tournament is the best we can possibly make it.

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

soinc9876
Member
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: January 4th, 2011, 1:30 pm
Division: C
State: OH

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby soinc9876 » May 1st, 2011, 1:51 pm

chalker wrote:
Kovu wrote:Anybody know when they are going to post the results my team didnt stay for the awards


They'll probably go up early next week on the OSU website, but I'll see if I can post them here too somehow later today. Is there a particular event you are interested in knowing about?




I'd like to know the results for anatomy and Ecology. Thanks :!: :)

jarrred_1415
Member
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: December 13th, 2010, 1:28 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH
Location: northmont

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby jarrred_1415 » May 1st, 2011, 2:45 pm

dholdgreve wrote:
chalker wrote:
dholdgreve wrote:What happened in C towers that would kick it to a trial event?


Towers is a walk-in event for both divisions (and run by the same people). On the B schedule we had the event ending at 1:50PM, but on the C schedule we accidentally showed it going until 2:50PM (I take partially responsibility for this since I was one of a handful of people who reviewed the event schedule before it was posted). The event supervisor broke down the equipment at 2PM, dropped the scores off and left. Several teams showed up expecting to compete in the 2-2:50PM time slot and found an empty room. Since we weren't able to allow them to compete, it was only fair to not have the event count towards the team scores.

I just checked (Note we did NOT know this at the tournament yesterday and it did NOT factor into our decision), but if we had kept it as a regular event, the top 6 teams would still be in the the same order, and thus everyone who got a team trophy would have still gotten the same trophy. At least one of the top 10 teams was unable to compete, but even if they had scored 1st in the event they still wouldn't have bumped up enough in the standings to get a trophy.


Wow... that's a shocker... You'd think that it would be assumed that at a State level competition, where teams have worked their bottoms off to be there, that possibly one, maybe even 2 teams, might not compete in an event, but if there are more scores than that that are still blank, the E/C would check with SOMEBODY... ANYBODY! before just breaking his stuff down and leaving! Especially if he has proctored previously... It 's not about whether this changed a TEAM's ranking, it's about all the hard work that the skipped students did, and then could not test... No excuse for this.
... Sorry, just my opinion. Understandable at a competition like WSU... first year, many new E/Cs, intended as a practice competition for Nat's, just and Invitational, but not at State Final that has been run for 26 years... The bugs should be gone.

i watched towers for an hour or so, and it was obvious to me and several others that the event proctors didn't know what they were doing and probably got and read the rules the morning of.(all of them were college students) maybe next year it should be suggested that somebody with experience running towers should run it. what does it matter if the person is a coach the his/her team tests a tower i see no real advantage for that team. you could easily get somebody with experience to run a simple event like towers.

wlsguy
Member
Member
Posts: 366
Joined: March 23rd, 2009, 9:08 am
Division: Grad
State: OH
Location: Ohio

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby wlsguy » May 1st, 2011, 4:17 pm

chalker wrote: ...Unlike most invitationals, we generally don't have the coaches run events (there are some exceptions to this), and thus it's often difficult to pull in people to volunteer their time for some strange thing called Science Olympiad....


Actually, from my count, 9 or 10 events were run by coaches this year. 7 of those coaches had teams at the event.
Having coaches run events gives their team an advantage (with a known test style, test setup, or material).

Before this year, I had previously been opposed to the practice because I have data that shows those whose coaches run the events tend to win those events.
Now, I'm beginning to thing otherwise.

I would suggest for next year:
Since the events with problems tend to have a building element, assign an experienced school to serve as the "mentor" to the outside party running the event. Many of these schools have been to many invitationals (ours goes to 5 /year) and know how the event has worked in the past. They can also help troubleshoot any problems without actually writing the test or doing the testing.
If you need test setups (which I understand was the case with Wind Power) someone should ask. Many teams have them and would gladly offer them up.

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2086
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby chalker » May 1st, 2011, 4:33 pm

soinc9876 wrote:
I'd like to know the results for anatomy and Ecology. Thanks :!: :)


For which team?

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

jgrischow1
Member
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: March 20th, 2011, 3:21 pm
Division: B
State: OH

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby jgrischow1 » May 1st, 2011, 4:43 pm

chalker wrote:
Kovu wrote:Anybody know when they are going to post the results my team didnt stay for the awards


They'll probably go up early next week on the OSU website, but I'll see if I can post them here too somehow later today. Is there a particular event you are interested in knowing about?


We weren't able to stay either. Posting the results would be very much appreciated.

chalker7
Member
Member
Posts: 610
Joined: September 27th, 2010, 5:31 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby chalker7 » May 1st, 2011, 6:01 pm

wlsguy wrote:Before this year, I had previously been opposed to the practice because I have data that shows those whose coaches run the events tend to win those events.
Now, I'm beginning to thing otherwise.


You have data on this? Would you be willing to share that with us? Or even just me, in private.
This exact issue comes up often, especially at regional tournaments (including those that I've helped with in the past) and I'd be very curious to see what you've thought about.

Personally, I'm a strong proponent of allowing (and even encouraging) coaches to run events at regional and state tournaments. Good coaches clearly have experience and expertise with the event and will presumably run the event as written by the rules. Furthermore, they are experienced with Science Olympiad, so they know how tournaments work and will avoid many issues that come up with novice supervisors. I also think the question of bias is thrown out of proportion. Of course the coach's team will do better on a test that the coach proctors, but I don't think that is because any cheating or otherwise nefarious dealings. It's just because the coach knows the event well and is preparing the students well for it. I suspect in most (if not all) of these cases, the teams would do equally well on another high quality test written within the purview of the rules by a separate event supervisor. Furthermore, if there is any suspicion of cheating, there is always the arbitration/appeals process. It might be difficult to detect if teams are especially crafty, but this is also where the tournament director could use their personal judgement in selecting and assigning event supervisors.
National event supervisor - Wright Stuff, Helicopters

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2086
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby chalker » May 1st, 2011, 6:10 pm

wlsguy wrote:
I would suggest for next year:
Since the events with problems tend to have a building element, assign an experienced school to serve as the "mentor" to the outside party running the event. Many of these schools have been to many invitationals (ours goes to 5 /year) and know how the event has worked in the past. They can also help troubleshoot any problems without actually writing the test or doing the testing.
If you need test setups (which I understand was the case with Wind Power) someone should ask. Many teams have them and would gladly offer them up.


This is a great idea. I'll pass it on to Lynn. I think it'd help if teams would also provide Lynn with a list of events they'd be willing to mentor in.

Regarding test setups, that wasn't the fundamental issue with Wind Power. The bigger issue was the students running the event didn't realize the rules had changed significantly and were setting things up based upon last year's rules.

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

aajewell
Member
Member
Posts: 1
Joined: May 1st, 2011, 11:46 am
Division: B
State: OH

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby aajewell » May 1st, 2011, 9:28 pm

Wondering about results from Division B Microbe Mission, Disease Detectives, Expierimental Design, and Anatomy for New Richmond Middle school at the OH state competition. Results would be great :)

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2086
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby chalker » May 2nd, 2011, 7:11 am

chalker wrote:
dholdgreve wrote:What happened in C towers that would kick it to a trial event?


Towers is a walk-in event for both divisions (and run by the same people). On the B schedule we had the event ending at 1:50PM, but on the C schedule we accidentally showed it going until 2:50PM (I take partially responsibility for this since I was one of a handful of people who reviewed the event schedule before it was posted). The event supervisor broke down the equipment at 2PM, dropped the scores off and left. Several teams showed up expecting to compete in the 2-2:50PM time slot and found an empty room. Since we weren't able to allow them to compete, it was only fair to not have the event count towards the team scores.

I just checked (Note we did NOT know this at the tournament yesterday and it did NOT factor into our decision), but if we had kept it as a regular event, the top 6 teams would still be in the the same order, and thus everyone who got a team trophy would have still gotten the same trophy. At least one of the top 10 teams was unable to compete, but even if they had scored 1st in the event they still wouldn't have bumped up enough in the standings to get a trophy.


There is an additional tidbit I just found out that I thought I should share about the situation: I've just been informed that the Towers event supervisor's wife gave birth on Friday (less than 24 hours before the tournament). I'm sure that factored in to the situation and I've grateful that in spite of that he still came and conducted the event.

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

wlsguy
Member
Member
Posts: 366
Joined: March 23rd, 2009, 9:08 am
Division: Grad
State: OH
Location: Ohio

Re: Ohio 2011

Postby wlsguy » May 2nd, 2011, 7:48 am

chalker7 wrote:
You have data on this? ... Furthermore, if there is any suspicion of cheating, there is always the arbitration/appeals process. It might be difficult to detect if teams are especially crafty, but this is also where the tournament director could use their personal judgement in selecting and assigning event supervisors.


I sent you a PM.

Also,
I do not think any coach is cheating. It's just coaches will prepare their team with everything they know and will write the test from the same resources/knowledge. In this case, each team will have been taught all of the answers and just need to recall it. Other teams may come across a question they didn't know. It's also one of the benefits of going to many invitationals and gettings tests written by many people. New questions and topics are presented you may not have thought of on your own.

Building events tend to have less natural bias because the test setups are typically similar (all stopwatches and scales work the same). Here the only issue is with mistakes (which are often unavoidable).


Return to “2011 Invitationals, Regionals, and States”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest