On a Saturday morning in March, Maya logs into a national science competition from her kitchen table. Her laptop camera is on, her virtual lab simulation is loading, and a proctor is monitoring students on-screen. Three time zones away, Jordan is pinning his team’s number onto a T-shirt in a noisy gym, dragging a homemade air-powered rocket toward the launch field for an in-person Science Olympiad invitational. Both are competing in science, yet their experiences could not feel more different.
In recent years, science competitions have transformed from largely physical events to a mix of virtual, hybrid, and traditional formats. This shift started during the pandemic but has evolved into a long-term rethinking of what “competition” can look like. Here on ScholarComp, we explore how these changes affect access, learning, and the future of student science.
To understand today’s format debate, it helps to see how quickly things changed. For decades, most major science competitions were anchored in physical spaces. Teams traveled with tri-fold boards, homemade devices, and lab notebooks, enjoying the social buzz of in-person events.
Then, in 2020, many competitions pivoted online. Organizers created virtual judging rooms, digital submissions, and remote proctoring systems. Some local science fairs moved to pre-recorded presentations, while other lab-heavy events became theoretical. This emergency experiment revealed unexpected benefits and limitations. For instance, a regional science fair that went virtual found increased participation by the third year as rural and homeschooling students joined. However, veteran participants missed the energizing environment of in-person presentations.
As in-person options return, organizers are weighing what to keep from the virtual era and what to bring back from traditional formats. The result is a landscape where “virtual vs. in-person” is not just a temporary choice but a long-term strategic decision.
Virtual science competitions occur entirely online. Students submit digital project reports, videos, or data files; exams are delivered via secure platforms. Events like virtual science fairs and online engineering challenges are now common.
The biggest benefit is access. Travel costs and time can be significant barriers. A student in a small town may never have attended a national event in person but can join a virtual contest from home. For instance, Aisha, a middle schooler without a science club, designs an experiment on local water quality for a virtual fair, presenting via video without the need for hotel costs or missed school days.
Virtual competitions also reward different skills, such as:
For exam-based events, virtual formats can alleviate logistical stress, allowing students to participate from familiar environments and offering flexible testing windows.
However, virtual formats have drawbacks. Technology access becomes a prerequisite: stable internet, capable devices, and quiet spaces are necessary. This can disadvantage students from low-connectivity households. Additionally, ensuring authenticity becomes a challenge, requiring designs that minimize cheating. Some shifts have included open-ended tasks and remote proctoring measures.
The most common downside reported is the loss of in-person energy. Virtual award ceremonies often feel quieter than in-person events, eliminating opportunities for conversations and tactile experiences. Students like Noah, a hands-on builder, missed the iterative process of building in events that were adapted to virtual formats.
In-person science competitions remain vital for many students. Events such as Science Olympiad tournaments and robotics championships provide an intensity that is hard to replicate online.
The clear advantage is hands-on learning. Events involving building or experimentation work best in-person. For example, Elena’s team designs a device to drop an egg safely from height. In practice, they test materials and adjust designs on the fly. The immediate feedback from success or failure fosters a deeper understanding of engineering.
Furthermore, in-person events excel at building community. Students meet peers with shared interests, inspired by the range of projects up close. Informal moments, like trading pins or collaborating between rounds, enhance confidence and communication skills, fostering a sense of belonging in the scientific community.
In-person formats come with logistical and equity challenges. Travel can be costly, limiting participation from underfunded schools. Scheduling conflicts can also prevent dedicated students from attending, and performing live can be overwhelming, especially for newcomers.
Additionally, in-person events are subject to disruptions such as weather or health restrictions, prompting organizers to increasingly integrate virtual tools for backup, which explains the rise of hybrid models.
Many competitions are now adopting hybrid models, combining virtual and in-person elements strategically. For example, a national environmental science challenge might accept online submissions, followed by in-person presentations for finalists.
One approach uses virtual stages for preliminary rounds and in-person for finals. Another splits activities based on type: remote theoretical testing and in-person lab events. A hypothetical middle school league could have online quizzes in fall and an in-person event in spring for practical challenges, balancing cost and access with community engagement.
Hybrid designs can enhance accessibility while retaining community aspects. However, they require careful planning and adaptation. While a team may excel in virtual segments, the opposite could be true for in-person events, necessitating well-rounded preparation.
With virtual, in-person, and hybrid options available, students and educators need strategies for selecting competitions. The best format will depend on goals and available resources.
Clarify priorities: if exposure to advanced scientific ideas with minimal cost is your main goal, opt for virtual competitions. If hands-on building and social interaction appeal more, seek at least one in-person event each year. Regardless of format, preparation is key—utilize online platforms and ScholarComp guides to develop a comprehensive plan over time.
Hybrid strategies can maximize limited resources while expanding impact. For example, support a large group in virtual challenges and a smaller travel team for in-person events. Alternate practice schedules between virtual tasks and in-person activities to help students adapt.
Examine participant demographics across formats. Consider piloting hybrid features gradually, like moving the first round online or creating a virtual showcase. Transparent communication about rules and requirements will help students navigate different expectations.
The shift from purely in-person science competitions to a mix of virtual, hybrid, and traditional formats represents a turning point. Rather than asking which format is “better,” we should consider how each can serve specific goals—broadening access, enhancing hands-on learning, building community, and developing modern skills. For many students, the ideal path involves both experiences across their educational journey. Explore more resources on ScholarComp to design a balanced competition roadmap tailored to your goals and interests.
Helpful?