Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Longfellow sent only 2 individuals from Chapter to State this year? I don't think their bench is so deep that we'd have to worry about the 13th.

True. No team in the area has such a deep bench that the #13 kid would have a legitimate shot at making state or nationals. I don't know what the numbers are this year, but last year, Longfellow had 8 kids qualify for AIME out of nearly 100 taking the AMC10, and likely at least half of those barely qualified. The majority of the 100 kids who took AMC 10 are the types in AoPS/RSM/Curie/Chinese School math classes who despite all of the training fell short. While I'm sure that #13 and on would have enjoyed competing, it's not like Mathcounts is excluding deeply talented kids.

There's a bit a condescension here. Only 3000 high schoolers (out of millions) are good enough to qualify for the AIME. Doing it in middle school puts you in a high tier (even if you *barely* make it). For comparison, 15 years ago when I took it, only 1 middle schooler in my entire state qualified... 8 at Longfellow is nothing to sneeze at.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Longfellow sent only 2 individuals from Chapter to State this year? I don't think their bench is so deep that we'd have to worry about the 13th.

I don't think it's ever possible to send more than 8 kids from a school to states in the NoVA chapter. This is because per their current rules, Mathcounts only allows an additional top 4 individuals who are not part of one of the four person winning teams.

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think they've ever taken 15 kids.

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Longfellow sent only 2 individuals from Chapter to State this year? I don't think their bench is so deep that we'd have to worry about the 13th.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Longfellow sent only 2 individuals from Chapter to State this year? I don't think their bench is so deep that we'd have to worry about the 13th.

True. No team in the area has such a deep bench that the #13 kid would have a legitimate shot at making state or nationals. I don't know what the numbers are this year, but last year, Longfellow had 8 kids qualify for AIME out of nearly 100 taking the AMC10, and likely at least half of those barely qualified. The majority of the 100 kids who took AMC 10 are the types in AoPS/RSM/Curie/Chinese School math classes who despite all of the training fell short. While I'm sure that #13 and on would have enjoyed competing, it's not like Mathcounts is excluding deeply talented kids.

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Longfellow sent only 2 individuals from Chapter to State this year? I don't think their bench is so deep that we'd have to worry about the 13th.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Longfellow sent only 2 individuals from Chapter to State this year? I don't think their bench is so deep that we'd have to worry about the 13th.

True. No team in the area has such a deep bench that the #13 kid would have a legitimate shot at making state or nationals. I don't know what the numbers are this year, but last year, Longfellow had 8 kids qualify for AIME out of nearly 100 taking the AMC10, and likely at least half of those barely qualified. The majority of the 100 kids who took AMC 10 are the types in AoPS/RSM/Curie/Chinese School math classes who despite all of the training fell short. While I'm sure that #13 and on would have enjoyed competing, it's not like Mathcounts is excluding deeply talented kids.

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Longfellow sent only 2 individuals from Chapter to State this year? I don't think their bench is so deep that we'd have to worry about the 13th.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the kid didn't make the top 12 and get to compete at all, why are you so sure that the kid would have done well at chapter? Kids often do much better when they're mocking the test at home than they do for the real test.

Based off practices. There was a big dropoff between this kid and the replacement, who was actually the 2nd replacement after another kid dropped out. The team scores were very close.

Even worse, this coach had a makeup round for the school test for people who missed it the first time. Students didn't know they made the team until the week of the contest.

So, after the school round, your kid wasn't even in the top 14 scores for the school (not in the top 4 for the team, the next 8 for individuals, or the first or second replacement)? What was the school round cutoff to make the top 12 from the school? Or do you mean that your kid did compete as an individual, but wasn't on the 4 person team?

I'm sorry that I'm not giving you the validation that you seem to expect. I would agree that if the coach did not clearly communicate that the school round would be used for selecting the team, then the coach is in the wrong. If the top 12 cutoff on the school round was like 38+, and the coach didn't add an alternate, higher ceiling test, the coach was in the wrong. If you just assumed that the school round was "something silly" and optional, and that your kid could blow it off but still be given a spot on the team over the kids with higher scores, then you were in the wrong. Even the Longfellow kid who won state for the last two years and placed 15th at nationals last year probably had to earn his spot on the team again this year. You can't just skip the audition/tryout but expect to be given the role/spot over the kids who showed up. Regardless of whether the fault is mostly on you and your kid or whether it's mostly on the coach, expecting Mathcounts to expand their numbers because you think your kid deserved a spot is pretty special snowflake.

You are making too many assumptions about who is posting and who I am. I am also making assumptions, like your kid competed at Madison's Trust.
I was just pointing out that a coach is not locked into using the school round. I don't know what the cutoff was, but I doubt it was not very high. Like I said a big dropoff.

Again, I'm not trying to be antagonistic or make assumptions. The fact that have been laid out are absurd. The facts as presented are:
-Kid blew off the tryout for picking the team because they have other conflicting activities.
-Other kids didn't blow off the tryout and scored higher.
-The coach used the scores to pick the team, and the kid wasn't picked.
-You doubt the cutoff was not very high, meaning the cutoff was high, yet there was still a big dropoff.
-You're somehow weirdly invested in the idea that this kid who isn't yours deserved to compete, despite scoring lower than the other kids.
-Mathcounts is somehow at fault and needs to expand beyond 12 kids per school so this specific kid could have competed, despite the logistical issues with housing even more kids for the contest and grading even more tests.

I'm not understanding the issue with not letting the kid compete. He blew off the tryout and didn't score well. It all sounds appropriate.

I'm not faulting MathCounts or suggesting changes, although they took 15 before, and maybe should do that with their budget issues and only giving 10% to the states.
I meant to say I think the cutoff was low.
The issue is the school did not win because of how the coach picked the team. Brought this up in response to how someone else complained about doing badly on a school round.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the kid didn't make the top 12 and get to compete at all, why are you so sure that the kid would have done well at chapter? Kids often do much better when they're mocking the test at home than they do for the real test.

Based off practices. There was a big dropoff between this kid and the replacement, who was actually the 2nd replacement after another kid dropped out. The team scores were very close.

Even worse, this coach had a makeup round for the school test for people who missed it the first time. Students didn't know they made the team until the week of the contest.

So, after the school round, your kid wasn't even in the top 14 scores for the school (not in the top 4 for the team, the next 8 for individuals, or the first or second replacement)? What was the school round cutoff to make the top 12 from the school? Or do you mean that your kid did compete as an individual, but wasn't on the 4 person team?

I'm sorry that I'm not giving you the validation that you seem to expect. I would agree that if the coach did not clearly communicate that the school round would be used for selecting the team, then the coach is in the wrong. If the top 12 cutoff on the school round was like 38+, and the coach didn't add an alternate, higher ceiling test, the coach was in the wrong. If you just assumed that the school round was "something silly" and optional, and that your kid could blow it off but still be given a spot on the team over the kids with higher scores, then you were in the wrong. Even the Longfellow kid who won state for the last two years and placed 15th at nationals last year probably had to earn his spot on the team again this year. You can't just skip the audition/tryout but expect to be given the role/spot over the kids who showed up. Regardless of whether the fault is mostly on you and your kid or whether it's mostly on the coach, expecting Mathcounts to expand their numbers because you think your kid deserved a spot is pretty special snowflake.

You are making too many assumptions about who is posting and who I am. I am also making assumptions, like your kid competed at Madison's Trust.
I was just pointing out that a coach is not locked into using the school round. I don't know what the cutoff was, but I doubt it was not very high. Like I said a big dropoff.

Again, I'm not trying to be antagonistic or make assumptions. The fact that have been laid out are absurd. The facts as presented are:
-Kid blew off the tryout for picking the team because they have other conflicting activities.
-Other kids didn't blow off the tryout and scored higher.
-The coach used the scores to pick the team, and the kid wasn't picked.
-You doubt the cutoff was not very high, meaning the cutoff was high, yet there was still a big dropoff.
-You're somehow weirdly invested in the idea that this kid who isn't yours deserved to compete, despite scoring lower than the other kids.
-Mathcounts is somehow at fault and needs to expand beyond 12 kids per school so this specific kid could have competed, despite the logistical issues with housing even more kids for the contest and grading even more tests.

I'm not understanding the issue with not letting the kid compete. He blew off the tryout and didn't score well. It all sounds appropriate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the kid didn't make the top 12 and get to compete at all, why are you so sure that the kid would have done well at chapter? Kids often do much better when they're mocking the test at home than they do for the real test.

Based off practices. There was a big dropoff between this kid and the replacement, who was actually the 2nd replacement after another kid dropped out. The team scores were very close.

Even worse, this coach had a makeup round for the school test for people who missed it the first time. Students didn't know they made the team until the week of the contest.

So, after the school round, your kid wasn't even in the top 14 scores for the school (not in the top 4 for the team, the next 8 for individuals, or the first or second replacement)? What was the school round cutoff to make the top 12 from the school? Or do you mean that your kid did compete as an individual, but wasn't on the 4 person team?

I'm sorry that I'm not giving you the validation that you seem to expect. I would agree that if the coach did not clearly communicate that the school round would be used for selecting the team, then the coach is in the wrong. If the top 12 cutoff on the school round was like 38+, and the coach didn't add an alternate, higher ceiling test, the coach was in the wrong. If you just assumed that the school round was "something silly" and optional, and that your kid could blow it off but still be given a spot on the team over the kids with higher scores, then you were in the wrong. Even the Longfellow kid who won state for the last two years and placed 15th at nationals last year probably had to earn his spot on the team again this year. You can't just skip the audition/tryout but expect to be given the role/spot over the kids who showed up. Regardless of whether the fault is mostly on you and your kid or whether it's mostly on the coach, expecting Mathcounts to expand their numbers because you think your kid deserved a spot is pretty special snowflake.

You are making too many assumptions about who is posting and who I am. I am also making assumptions, like your kid competed at Madison's Trust.
I was just pointing out that a coach is not locked into using the school round. I don't know what the cutoff was, but I doubt it was not very high. Like I said a big dropoff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the kid didn't make the top 12 and get to compete at all, why are you so sure that the kid would have done well at chapter? Kids often do much better when they're mocking the test at home than they do for the real test.

Based off practices. There was a big dropoff between this kid and the replacement, who was actually the 2nd replacement after another kid dropped out. The team scores were very close.

Even worse, this coach had a makeup round for the school test for people who missed it the first time. Students didn't know they made the team until the week of the contest.

So, after the school round, your kid wasn't even in the top 14 scores for the school (not in the top 4 for the team, the next 8 for individuals, or the first or second replacement)? What was the school round cutoff to make the top 12 from the school? Or do you mean that your kid did compete as an individual, but wasn't on the 4 person team?

I'm sorry that I'm not giving you the validation that you seem to expect. I would agree that if the coach did not clearly communicate that the school round would be used for selecting the team, then the coach is in the wrong. If the top 12 cutoff on the school round was like 38+, and the coach didn't add an alternate, higher ceiling test, the coach was in the wrong. If you just assumed that the school round was "something silly" and optional, and that your kid could blow it off but still be given a spot on the team over the kids with higher scores, then you were in the wrong. Even the Longfellow kid who won state for the last two years and placed 15th at nationals last year probably had to earn his spot on the team again this year. You can't just skip the audition/tryout but expect to be given the role/spot over the kids who showed up. Regardless of whether the fault is mostly on you and your kid or whether it's mostly on the coach, expecting Mathcounts to expand their numbers because you think your kid deserved a spot is pretty special snowflake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the kid didn't make the top 12 and get to compete at all, why are you so sure that the kid would have done well at chapter? Kids often do much better when they're mocking the test at home than they do for the real test.

Based off practices. There was a big dropoff between this kid and the replacement, who was actually the 2nd replacement after another kid dropped out. The team scores were very close.

Even worse, this coach had a makeup round for the school test for people who missed it the first time. Students didn't know they made the team until the week of the contest.

Anonymous wrote:
If the kid didn't make the top 12 and get to compete at all, why are you so sure that the kid would have done well at chapter? Kids often do much better when they're mocking the test at home than they do for the real test.