On a rainy Saturday in March, a high school robotics team gathers around a laptop instead of a workbench. Their robot sits in a taped-off “arena” on the classroom floor, while a webcam captures every movement. A remote judge asks questions over video call; scores update live in a browser. The team’s driver uses a game controller, but their audience is a scrolling chat on the competition stream, not a cheering gym full of teams.
A few months later, another team wheels their robot into an echoing high school gym for an in-person event. The smell of solder and sawdust fills the air. Teams borrow tools from each other, fix last-minute wiring issues, and race to the practice field. When the robot finally scores in the real arena, the cheers and high-fives feel electric in a way no livestream could fully replicate.
Both teams are competing in engineering events—but their experiences could not feel more different. Since 2020, engineering competitions have rapidly experimented with virtual, hybrid, and redesigned in-person formats. This ScholarComp guide explores how those formats are evolving, what each does best, and how students, parents, and educators can choose (and prepare for) the right mix. It builds on themes from the broader series “Engineering Competition Trends,” especially the big-picture changes discussed in The State of Engineering Competitions in 2025.
Before 2020, most K–12 engineering competitions were firmly in-person: robotics arenas, bridge-building tests, Rube Goldberg machines, and hands-on design challenges. Then travel bans and school closures forced organizers to adapt or cancel. Many chose to reinvent.
Organizers of robotics leagues, STEM expos, and design challenges moved quickly to virtual formats. Students filmed their robot runs at home or school and submitted them online. Design-build competitions shifted toward CAD models and simulations. Some engineering events, inspired by online math contests like AMC and Science Olympiad’s virtual tournaments, adopted timed online exams alongside design tasks.
One middle school engineering club, for example, pivoted to an entirely virtual “eco-engineering challenge.” Students never met in person. Instead, they formed teams over video calls, designed energy-efficient houses using CAD tools, and submitted videos explaining their engineering decisions. Judges evaluated both technical quality and communication. This kind of experience would have been rare pre-2020; now, it is part of the normal landscape.
Virtual engineering competitions brought genuine advantages, not just emergency workarounds.
First, they expanded access. Students from rural schools, international locations, or districts with limited travel budgets could participate without flights, hotels, or long bus rides. A student in a small town with no local robotics league could now join a virtual engineering challenge using only a laptop, inexpensive materials, and an internet connection. Platforms like ScholarComp have made it easier to discover these opportunities and understand their requirements.
Second, virtual formats emphasized documentation and communication. Because judges could not physically inspect devices, they often relied on design reports, portfolios, recorded demos, and Q&A sessions over video. This rewarded students who could explain constraints, justify trade-offs, and reflect on failures—skills that align closely with real-world engineering practice.
Third, virtual competitions created new types of challenges. Some competitions started using simulation tools to test virtual bridges, circuits, or control systems. Others introduced “rapid design sprints,” where teams had 24–72 hours to brainstorm, prototype, and submit a design concept in response to a surprise prompt. These formats would be difficult to coordinate in person across many regions, but online they became practical.
For a high school student interested in aerospace engineering, for instance, a virtual challenge might require designing a Mars lander using simulation software, optimizing for mass, stability, and landing accuracy. Team members could collaborate over shared documents and video calls, working across time zones—an experience that mirrors modern distributed engineering teams.
Yet, virtual competitions remain limited in important ways.
Students lose much of the tactile experience that makes engineering competitions memorable. There is no crowded pit area where teams share tools and advice, no spontaneous troubleshooting sessions with neighboring teams, no chance to walk around and see dozens of physical solutions up close. Hands-on constraints—material tolerances, assembly challenges, unexpected friction—can disappear when designs live only in software.
One team that thrived in virtual CAD-based challenges struggled when they returned to in-person events. Their designs looked elegant on screen but proved difficult to assemble with real materials under time pressure. That gap between digital and physical is a key concern for educators planning a competition schedule: virtual events can strengthen design thinking, but students still need real-world build experience.
Virtual events also depend heavily on reliable technology. Unstable internet, limited devices, or noisy home environments can disadvantage some students. Organizers have improved guidelines and tech support, but equity concerns remain, particularly for younger students or schools with constrained resources.
Despite the rise of virtual formats, in-person engineering competitions remain central. They offer something extremely hard to replicate online: immersive, multisensory experience.
Consider a regional engineering design challenge where middle school teams build bridges from balsa wood. All day, you hear the snap of broken beams and the murmurs of last-minute design adjustments. Students watch as a judge carefully places weights onto their bridge until it finally fails. In that moment, they see structural weaknesses, material behavior, and load paths in a way no simulation quite matches.
Beyond the technical learning, in-person events build community. Younger students see older teams’ projects and imagine their own future. Mentors and engineers wander the floor, answering questions and offering advice. Students experience real-time collaboration and conflict resolution: disagreements over design trade-offs, role assignments, and how to respond to failure when something breaks right before judging.
In-person competitions excel in a few critical areas:
At a high school robotics event, for example, one team’s robot might fail inspection because of a wiring issue. They rush to repair it with help from a neighboring team and a volunteer mentor. That shared scramble, and the relief when the robot finally passes re-inspection, often stays in students’ memories long after scores are forgotten.
However, relying solely on in-person events has downsides.
Travel and participation costs can be significant. Entry fees, materials, tools, and transportation can make some competitions inaccessible for underfunded schools or families. Weather, health concerns, or local disruptions can cancel months of preparation if there is no virtual fallback. And for some communities, there simply are no nearby engineering competitions, limiting access to students who can travel long distances.
These concerns overlap with those discussed in Diversity and Inclusion in Engineering Competitions: format choices can widen or narrow participation. Many organizers are now asking how to preserve the strengths of in-person events while reducing barriers to entry.
Hybrid engineering competitions attempt to combine virtual and in-person advantages. In practice, “hybrid” can mean several different structures:
Imagine a national engineering design challenge that begins with a virtual phase. Teams submit a design brief, CAD models, and a short video explaining their concept. Judges score these materials remotely, and top teams advance to regional or national in-person build-and-test finals. This structure allows wide participation initially while preserving a high-impact in-person experience for finalists.
Hybrid formats can lessen cost and logistical barriers. A school might afford to participate virtually every year and travel for in-person finals every few years. Students get continuous exposure to engineering challenges without relying on large travel budgets.
Hybrid models also encourage a more complete engineering process. The virtual phase rewards research, analysis, and planning. The in-person phase tests fabrication, iteration, and real-time decision-making. Together, they reflect the full lifecycle of engineering projects: from concept and simulation to prototyping and testing.
One high school engineering teacher described a hybrid program where students worked through online problem sets and design prompts during the fall, using resources from ScholarComp and other online practice platforms to build foundational skills. In the spring, they applied those skills in a weekend-long in-person engineering challenge. Students reported that the online phase made them feel more prepared and confident when facing physical build tasks.
As technology improves, hybrid competitions are experimenting with more sophisticated setups. Some events now:
These trends mirror broader shifts discussed in Technology’s Impact on Engineering Competitions, where data, collaboration tools, and simulation software are becoming standard parts of the competition ecosystem.
The “best” competition format depends on your goals, constraints, and experience level.
For a student new to engineering, a virtual or hybrid challenge can be a low-pressure way to start. There is more flexibility in timing, fewer travel logistics, and often more emphasis on learning than on high-stakes performance. A middle schooler who enjoys building but has never joined a robotics team might start with a virtual design challenge that uses common household materials and simple electronics, guided by video tutorials and problem banks.
For teams that already have some experience and local support, in-person competitions can deepen skills and build stronger community. The physical build season, travel, and competition days often become the heart of a school’s engineering club culture.
Educators and parents should also consider equity and access. If travel funding or equipment is limited, virtual and hybrid competitions may allow more students to participate. If your school has strong local industry partners or nearby universities, leveraging those for in-person events can multiply the impact of hands-on challenges.
Many schools and students find that a “portfolio” of competition formats works best across a year or across several years.
A high school program might, for example, participate in:
This structure allows students to build analytical skills, practice technical communication, and then apply everything in a culminating hands-on event. Platforms like ScholarComp can help map out a sequence of competitions that fit your school calendar, local resources, and student interests.
Start by listing your constraints: time, budget, transportation, access to tools, and internet reliability. Then look for competitions whose formats match your reality this year while still pushing you to grow.
If you have limited workshop access but good internet, prioritize virtual or simulation-based competitions and supplement them with home-friendly building projects. If your school has a makerspace, consider at least one in-person or hybrid event that demands real fabrication and testing.
In any format, treat documentation seriously. Keep an engineering notebook, save code versions, record test results, and reflect on what worked and what didn’t. These habits translate across virtual, hybrid, and in-person competitions—and into college and career engineering.
Ask organizers concrete questions before committing: What does a typical competition day look like in this format? How much travel is required, and what are the costs? How are teams supported if technology fails during virtual events? How is safety handled during in-person builds?
Support your student by helping manage logistics—scheduling, transportation for in-person events, and quiet space and reliable internet for virtual ones. Encourage reflection: after each competition, ask what they learned about engineering and about teamwork or communication.
Think strategically about how different formats serve your curriculum. Use virtual challenges to introduce concepts and emphasize design reasoning. Use in-person builds to reinforce physics, materials science, and systems thinking through hands-on experience.
Work with administration to build a multi-year plan that balances costs and impact. Start with local or virtual events if budgets are tight, and aim for higher-level in-person competitions every few years as capstone experiences. Look for grant opportunities or community partnerships to offset travel and materials costs.
Finally, share your experiences with competition organizers. Feedback on what worked or didn’t in virtual, hybrid, and in-person formats helps shape the next generation of engineering competitions.
The question is no longer “virtual or in-person?” but “which mix of formats best serves our goals?” Virtual competitions have opened doors for students who previously had no access to engineering challenges. In-person events remain unmatched for hands-on learning and community. Hybrid models are evolving quickly, aiming to capture the strengths of both.
For students, parents, and educators, the opportunity is to be intentional: choose formats that fit your context, build a balanced pathway of experiences, and treat each competition as part of a larger journey into engineering. As engineering competitions continue to evolve, platforms like ScholarComp will play a growing role in helping you navigate options, compare formats, and find challenges that push students to design, build, and think like real engineers.
Explore more engineering competition resources and find your next virtual, hybrid, or in-person challenge on ScholarComp.
Helpful?