On a chilly Saturday morning in March 2025, a middle school gym in Ohio looks like mission control. One corner is filled with students testing a homemade spectroscope made from a cereal box and old DVDs. Across the room, a team huddles over a laptop, debugging a climate model that predicts flood risk for their own neighborhood. Parents linger near poster boards, trying to understand terms like “CRISPR,” “LIDAR,” and “quantum dot solar cells.”
This scene is playing out in thousands of schools and community centers around the world. Science fairs, Science Olympiad invitationals, and research competitions are no longer just about baking soda volcanoes and neatly labeled posters. In 2025, they sit at the crossroads of AI, climate anxiety, inclusion efforts, and changing college admissions. Here on ScholarComp, we’ve put together this trends analysis to help students, parents, and educators make sense of where science competitions are today—and where they’re heading next.
In 2020 and 2021, many science competitions went online out of necessity. By 2025, the emergency has passed, but the format changes have not. Instead of choosing between fully virtual or fully in-person, most major competitions now sit somewhere in the middle.
Consider a typical regional science fair this year. Project proposals, abstracts, and background research might be submitted through an online portal. Judges can review materials ahead of time, leave comments, and pre-score certain criteria. Then, on fair day, students present in person to a smaller group of judges, who focus on discussion, critical thinking, and communication. Finally, the awards ceremony is live-streamed so extended family and even collaborators from other states or countries can watch.
Science Olympiad, traditionally known for its hands-on, in-person events, now commonly runs “hybrid seasons.” A team might compete in an online invitational in November, complete a virtual rules clinic with event supervisors in January, and then attend an in-person regional tournament in March. Some events, such as written tests or data analysis challenges, are now designed to work equally well online or on paper.
If you want a deeper dive into how formats are evolving, see our focused discussion of format choices in Virtual vs In-Person Science Competitions, which complements the broader trends described here.
Hybrid models have opened doors for students who previously struggled to participate. Rural schools, homeschoolers, and internationally located students can now access online qualifiers or remote judging rounds that were rare before 2020. A student in a small town in Montana, for example, might present a research project via video interview to judges based in Boston, something that would have been logistically and financially difficult just a few years ago.
At the same time, hybrid competitions introduce new challenges. Schools with limited devices or unreliable internet find it harder to participate in online rounds. Some students report feeling disconnected when much of the early competition experience happens alone on a laptop instead of in a buzzing gym or auditorium. Organizers are still negotiating how to maintain fairness when students have very different home and school tech setups.
The result in 2025 is a patchwork: some competitions are mostly back in-person, others are permanently virtual, and many sit in the middle. What’s consistent is that students need to be prepared for both. They must be comfortable presenting on camera, turning a lab notebook into a digital submission, and also building physical devices or lab setups under in-person time constraints.
For students, the new landscape means it’s not enough to just “do science”; you need to be flexible in how you present it. Practicing a three-minute video pitch, learning to scan and upload diagrams clearly, and understanding how to share experimental data files are now core competition skills. Teachers, too, are adjusting, building hybrid-ready classroom projects that can become a poster presentation, a video pitch, or a live demonstration as needed.
Platforms like ScholarComp help by organizing competition calendars and listing which events include virtual qualifiers, in-person rounds, or fully online options, making planning easier for families and coaches.
Artificial intelligence is no longer just a topic for advanced high school projects; in 2025, it’s woven into how competitions are run and what students study. Data science, machine learning, and computational thinking are now common threads in everything from local science fairs to national research competitions.
Look at the project boards at a typical high school fair this year, and you’ll see titles like “Using Machine Learning to Detect Plant Diseases from Leaf Images” or “Predicting Local Air Quality with Neural Networks and Weather Data.” Students are increasingly using basic AI tools, often leveraging publicly available datasets and beginner-friendly coding tutorials, to explore complex questions with relatively modest hardware.
One real-world example: a ninth grader in a suburban school used a free image recognition library and a dataset of satellite photos to classify areas at risk of deforestation. Their project combined environmental science, computer science, and social impact, and it impressed judges not just for the technology but for the thoughtful discussion of limitations—bias, incomplete data, and the risk of overclaiming what a model can do.
At the same time, some competitions are explicitly adding AI-focused categories or awards. Special prizes for “Best Use of Computational Methods” or “Innovative Use of Data Science” are now common in major fairs and specialized contests. Science Olympiad and similar team-based competitions are piloting events that blend coding, data analysis, and experimental design.
The explosive growth of AI tools has also forced competitions to grapple with academic integrity in new ways. In 2025, most fair and competition rulebooks now include sections explicitly addressing generative AI, automated code assistants, and automated writing tools.
Typical guidelines distinguish between AI as a tool to assist with routine tasks and AI as a shortcut for original thinking. For example, using an AI system to help clean a dataset, suggest code optimizations, or generate synthetic data for comparison might be acceptable—if clearly disclosed. But asking an AI to write research questions, generate an entire lab report, or fabricate data is strongly prohibited.
Judges are learning to ask more probing questions: “Tell me how you designed this experiment from scratch,” or “Walk me through how you selected and cleaned your training data.” Students must be able to demonstrate ownership and deep understanding of their work, even if they used sophisticated tools along the way.
Beyond AI buzzwords, basic data literacy is now crucial. Students in 2025 are expected to go beyond “I made a graph” and toward “I understand what this graph actually means.” Competitions reward projects that show proper controls, an understanding of correlation versus causation, and transparent reporting of uncertainty and error.
One middle school project on water quality at a local river illustrates this shift. Instead of simply measuring pH a few times and drawing conclusions, the students collected data weekly for several months, logged weather conditions, and performed simple statistical tests to see whether apparent trends were meaningful. Judges praised the students’ openness about outliers, missing data, and measurement errors, which indicated real scientific maturity.
This emphasis is reshaping how coaches and teachers prepare students. Many are integrating small coding modules, spreadsheet skills, and introductory statistics into competition prep. Online practice platforms and video tutorials are increasingly focused on helping students interpret real-world datasets, not just answer multiple-choice questions.
Walk through any large science competition in 2025 and you’ll notice clear thematic clusters. Climate change, public health, and community-focused engineering projects dominate many categories. Students are not just asking, “How does this work?” but “How can this help?”
The spotlight on climate science has intensified. Projects investigate renewable energy efficiency, microplastics in local water sources, drought-resistant crops, and urban heat islands. But the biggest shift is toward hyper-local context. Students are no longer content to model sea-level rise in abstract; they want to understand what it means for their specific city, neighborhood, or even school building.
For example, a group of students in a coastal community used temperature and humidity sensors placed around their town to create a map of urban heat zones. They analyzed which areas lacked tree cover and how that correlated with socioeconomic data available from public sources. Their competition project ended with a set of concrete recommendations they presented to the local city council about where to prioritize tree planting.
Competitions are increasingly recognizing such projects with special awards in sustainability or environmental stewardship. Many events also partner with local organizations—watershed councils, environmental nonprofits, or city planning offices—to provide mentorship and real-world data, giving students a direct line between their research and actual policy conversations.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic still shows up strongly in 2025 competition themes. Students explore topics such as vaccine hesitancy, mental health impacts of remote school, simple diagnostics for infectious diseases, and strategies to combat misinformation about health.
One high school student, noticing low vaccination rates in her community, conducted a survey-based project examining which information sources people trusted most for health advice. She combined this with a simple educational intervention: short, science-backed videos distributed through local social media channels. Her project not only measured the impact on knowledge and attitudes but also grappled with ethical issues around consent, privacy, and the limits of “science fair interventions.”
Competitions are responding by including more explicit guidelines about human subjects research, including surveys and behavioral studies. Students must often obtain informed consent, get school or institutional approval, and follow stricter privacy rules, especially when dealing with minors or sensitive health information.
Beyond pure science questions, engineering design projects with clear social impact are booming. Students create low-cost air-quality sensors, phone apps for emergency alerts, improved prosthetics, or devices to help classmates with disabilities. The goal is often not to invent something completely new, but to adapt existing technologies to real constraints: limited budget, local materials, or specific cultural contexts.
For instance, a team of middle schoolers in an urban charter school built a low-cost, portable filtration device using readily available materials to help households dealing with frequent boil-water advisories. They tested their device under different conditions and compared it to commercial filters. Even though they didn’t beat commercial products in every metric, judges valued the project for its realistic design choices and thoughtful cost-benefit analysis.
This shift encourages students to see science competitions not as isolated academic exercises but as testbeds for civic engagement. It also pushes judges to evaluate not just technical brilliance but feasibility, empathy, and stakeholder awareness.
In 2025, science competitions are navigating a complicated question: Are they gateways to opportunity or amplifiers of existing inequities? The honest answer is both, and the state of the field reflects ongoing efforts to tilt that balance toward opportunity.
High-level competitions can demand significant resources: lab equipment, engineering materials, travel costs, coaching time, and sometimes even access to university labs or professional mentors. Students from well-funded schools or families often have an advantage in accessing these supports.
Imagine two students interested in a biomedical project. One attends a magnet school partnered with a nearby university and can join a research lab after school, using advanced equipment and receiving mentorship from graduate students. The other attends a small rural school with a basic lab and no local research institutions. Both are equally curious and hardworking, but their opportunities look very different.
Competitions, aware of this gap, are experimenting with solutions. Some now offer travel stipends, fee waivers, or equipment grants for under-resourced schools. Others require students to explicitly document the resources available to them and ask judges to evaluate projects relative to context. Online mentorship programs, sometimes coordinated through nonprofits or district initiatives, pair students with volunteer scientists or engineers who can guide them remotely.
Our related article on Diversity and Inclusion in Science Competitions explores these efforts in depth; here, it’s important simply to note that equity is no longer a side conversation—it’s central to how competitions define their mission in 2025.
Another major shift is in how educators and students perceive the purpose of competitions. For many years, contests were framed primarily as pathways to scholarships, selective colleges, or prestigious accolades. Those ambitions still exist, especially for national and international-level contests, but there is a growing recognition that the most important benefits often occur along the way, not at the awards ceremony.
Teachers are increasingly using competitions as structured frameworks for project-based learning, authentic assessment, and interdisciplinary collaboration. A middle school science teacher might guide an entire class through a mini “science fair cycle”—question, research, experiment, communicate—without worrying whether any student goes on to win at the regional level. The experience itself, including learning to handle failure and redesign experiments, is seen as the payoff.
Parents and students, too, are beginning to value sustained engagement over one-time wins. Being part of a science research class, a Science Olympiad team, or a community robotics club for three or four years often does more for a student’s confidence and skills than a single standout medal. Competition resumes are being evaluated alongside stories of growth, leadership, and resilience.
The college admissions landscape has also changed how science competitions are perceived. With many universities scaling back standardized test requirements, other demonstrations of intellectual curiosity and initiative have become more significant. Research projects, sustained involvement in STEM teams, and strong letters from competition mentors can all play a part.
However, competitive admissions have also led to concerns about “resume building” and authenticity. Admissions officers and competition judges alike are becoming more skeptical of overly polished projects that feel adult-designed. They look for evidence that students genuinely understand their work, made meaningful decisions, and grappled with challenges personally rather than handing tasks off to mentors or parents.
This scrutiny is pushing competitions to emphasize process over product. Many now require detailed research plans, process logs, or reflection essays. Judges ask about failed experiments, redesigns, and what the student would do with more time—not just about final results. The message in 2025 is that messy, honest learning is more valuable than perfect-looking but shallow projects.
Given these trends—hybrid formats, AI integration, socially driven themes, and equity efforts—what should you actually do if you’re involved in science competitions right now? Here’s what works in 2025.
If you’re a student, the most important shift is mental: think of science competitions not as “events to win” but as “structures that support your curiosity.” Start with a question or problem that genuinely bothers or fascinates you, even if it seems small. Maybe your little brother has asthma and you want to understand local air quality. Maybe your school’s playground floods every time it rains. Maybe you’ve seen headlines about microplastics and want to know if they’re in the fish you eat.
From there, keep three priorities in mind:
A practical approach: set aside a weekly “research block” for yourself during the competition season. During that time, you might analyze data, write up results, or rehearse answering tough questions out loud. Treat it like practice for a sport or instrument; regular, focused time is more important than marathon sessions right before a deadline.
Parents often feel pressure to step in “for the sake of the project,” especially when competitions feel high-stakes. In 2025, with growing emphasis on authenticity, the best support you can give is not doing the work for your child, but helping them manage time, access resources, and cope with setbacks.
Consider a parent whose eighth grader decides halfway through the year to enter a regional science fair. The parent’s role might include helping build a realistic timeline, driving to a local library or hardware store, and providing a sounding board when experiments fail. What they should avoid is writing the report, designing the poster, or taking over the project direction. Judges—and students—can tell when that line has been crossed.
Parents can also help by advocating for equitable access. If your child’s school doesn’t routinely participate in science competitions, ask administrators what support would be needed: a teacher sponsor, modest funding for materials or entry fees, or connections to local mentors. Sometimes a single parent stepping up can catalyze a new club or team.
Teachers and coaches are at the heart of the 2025 competition ecosystem. The most effective programs treat competitions as the visible tip of a much larger iceberg of classroom and club activity.
For example, a middle school science teacher might run a year-long inquiry lab course in which all students carry out small investigations. From that cohort, a dozen students choose to refine their work for the school fair. A smaller group moves on to regional competition, and a core few join a year-round STEM club or Science Olympiad team. The key is that everyone gets some experience, even if only some advance to formal contests.
Coaches also play an important role in navigating new trends. They can help students use AI tools responsibly by setting clear expectations and modeling transparency. They can choose themes that connect to local community issues, making projects feel meaningful and grounded. And they can push back against inequities by sharing resources across schools, partnering with community organizations, and encouraging students from underrepresented groups to take on leadership roles.
ScholarComp’s competition guides and calendars can help educators compare different contests, understand rule changes, and design a progression that fits their students, from introductory fairs to more advanced national challenges.
The state of science competitions in 2025 is dynamic, hopeful, and complex. To make this concrete, here are focused action steps you can take now:
In 2025, science competitions sit at a fascinating intersection of tradition and transformation. The poster boards and tri-fold displays are still there, but they’re joined by dashboards of sensor data, machine learning scripts, and community partnerships. Students are not only competing; they’re modeling climate resilience, designing assistive devices, and asking hard questions about fairness and truth in a world shaped by AI.
For students, parents, and educators willing to adapt, this landscape offers unprecedented opportunities. You don’t need a fancy lab to ask meaningful questions, and you don’t have to win a national title for a project to change how a student sees themselves as a scientist or engineer. If you’re ready to dive deeper into specific trends—from technology’s influence to new competitions emerging on the scene—explore more competition resources on ScholarComp and continue through our “Science Competition Trends” series. The tools are evolving, the rules are changing, but the core remains the same: curiosity, rigor, and the belief that young people can use science to make the world better.
Helpful?