Scioly.org

syo_astro wrote:

drcubbin wrote:As a possible solution, I offer this - If those who write the rules would expand the topics to make the materials more challenging. Maybe "balancing simple equations" could be come just, "balancing equations", or in the chemistry events, why not specify we can include that stoichiometry (nothing more than learning conversion units) or molarity (concentration of a solution)be permitted or make the periodic table a better part of the rules? If there was more to work with, test writers would be better able to modify and alter questions from one test to the other and it would be more challenging. Unfortunately, I do see a trend to making the test writing "parameters" simpler, and so it makes tests more simpler and more similar. Test writers are the glue of the events. Give them more to work with and you would have better - and more diverse - tests.

Huh, are rules writers trying to make test writing focus on only simpler topics? I haven't been writing / checking enough events recently...but that would be unfortunate vs. the usual "simple but open" philosophy that I knew rules writers to have (like simple rules but very wide reach of topics they cover). Like, I thought everyone just knew that good rules enable both easy and hard tests >.>. The only issue is adding rules with "buts" can be bad...so idk, depends on the event.

You would think so, Syo. And again the problem comes when information is not specifically included in the rules manual, but appears in examinations at all levels of competition. I would even be happy with adding the infamous "includes, but not limited to...:" line as to permit more latitude. For instance, Potions and Poisons, the rules state, "This part will be a multiple-choice and short answer test covering the following topics:" If it would be worded as (off the top of my head), "Though this is a general science examination, this written part will be a multiple-choice and short answer test covering - but not limited to - the following topics..." or just expand the level of topics. Test writers want to write challenging - and different tests - but when you are "mandated" to cover a list of topics, instead of having the option to focus more on one and leave others out, it would make the process much easier, and I believe challenging.

Well, it depends. When I write one alone it usually takes me around 12-16 hours. When I have a co-event supervisor, it takes me only 12-16 hours.

John Richardsim wrote:Well, it depends. When I write one alone it usually takes me around 12-16 hours. When I have a co-event supervisor, it takes me only 12-16 hours.

Sounds about right...

I made a test for SSSS 2k19. Is there a way to upload it onto the forums?

BennyTheJett wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:52 pm I made a test for SSSS 2k19. Is there a way to upload it onto the forums?

I'm pretty sure syo or someone will eventually upload everything from SSSS to the test exchange themselves.

If I'm writing fossils, I generally take forever because I'll be combing our fossil collection for unique/interesting specimens to write questions on.

Otherwise, 10-15 hours for a decent test is pretty standard. For higher-tier invites/competitions, I will generally take more time to double check the key and questions.

AWildMudkip wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:39 pm If I'm writing fossils, I generally take forever because I'll be combing our fossil collection for unique/interesting specimens to write questions on.

Otherwise, 10-15 hours for a decent test is pretty standard. For higher-tier invites/competitions, I will generally take more time to double check the key and questions.

Wow Im starting to think Im just slow. Most tests take me 30-40 hours. The nationals circuit lab test I wrote was somewhere in the range of 60-80 since it was my first time writing for circuit lab and I spent a good 10-15 hours on formatting alone.

Nah I wouldn't consider that toooo slow. I tend to not put too much effort into formatting (something I'm trying to work on this year). Especially later on in the year, I take way more time bc my test writing juices run dry lol

windu34 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:57 pm

AWildMudkip wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:39 pm If I'm writing fossils, I generally take forever because I'll be combing our fossil collection for unique/interesting specimens to write questions on.

Otherwise, 10-15 hours for a decent test is pretty standard. For higher-tier invites/competitions, I will generally take more time to double check the key and questions.

Wow Im starting to think Im just slow. Most tests take me 30-40 hours. The nationals circuit lab test I wrote was somewhere in the range of 60-80 since it was my first time writing for circuit lab and I spent a good 10-15 hours on formatting alone.

Ay 30-40 hours for one test... yeah I'm thinking that's on the slow side. I probably spent about 30-40 hours on Geomaps MIT last year, about 5-15 on a typical test.

Unome wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:30 am

windu34 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:57 pm

AWildMudkip wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:39 pm If I'm writing fossils, I generally take forever because I'll be combing our fossil collection for unique/interesting specimens to write questions on.

Otherwise, 10-15 hours for a decent test is pretty standard. For higher-tier invites/competitions, I will generally take more time to double check the key and questions.

Wow Im starting to think Im just slow. Most tests take me 30-40 hours. The nationals circuit lab test I wrote was somewhere in the range of 60-80 since it was my first time writing for circuit lab and I spent a good 10-15 hours on formatting alone.

Ay 30-40 hours for one test... yeah I'm thinking that's on the slow side. I probably spent about 30-40 hours on Geomaps MIT last year, about 5-15 on a typical test.

Darn, I wish I could write a test in 5-15 hours... How long does it take you if you don't know the rules for an event before writing a test?