Scioly.org

Bilbo McSwaggins wrote:

coprolite_dipstick wrote:

icanteven wrote: What do you mean by linking?

I would also study diseases not included on the rules, because at a lot of the invitationals and regionals and states that I went to this year, there have been questions like "Name the symptoms of Sjogrens syndrome" and some other questions about diseases that where really out there.

This has happened to me a couple times this year, where the test covers topics that are not included in the rules. First in cell bio, a question asked about meiosis but there was an FAQ that said meiosis would not be on the test, so someone told the event supervisor and they let us change the question to mitosis. Then at state, the test had a lot of questions covering nationals topics, which shouldn't have been allowed but the supervisor didn't seem to know that there even were separate topics only tested at the National level. Maybe we should have submitted an appeal. Have any of you ever tried to challenge the questions to say theses diseases were not included in the rules?

watermydoing14 wrote: This has happened to me a couple times this year, where the test covers topics that are not included in the rules. First in cell bio, a question asked about meiosis but there was an FAQ that said meiosis would not be on the test, so someone told the event supervisor and they let us change the question to mitosis. Then at state, the test had a lot of questions covering nationals topics, which shouldn't have been allowed but the supervisor didn't seem to know that there even were separate topics only tested at the National level. Maybe we should have submitted an appeal. Have any of you ever tried to challenge the questions to say theses diseases were not included in the rules?

Appeals like this usually don't work for study events. In my experience, the argument that proctors often used (usually at the state level) is that even though they aren't mentioned in the rules, the material is still relevant to the event, and all the teams (not just you) were expected to know this material for the test.

Honestly, anything about the subject is fair game.

Crazy Puny Man wrote:

watermydoing14 wrote: This has happened to me a couple times this year, where the test covers topics that are not included in the rules. First in cell bio, a question asked about meiosis but there was an FAQ that said meiosis would not be on the test, so someone told the event supervisor and they let us change the question to mitosis. Then at state, the test had a lot of questions covering nationals topics, which shouldn't have been allowed but the supervisor didn't seem to know that there even were separate topics only tested at the National level. Maybe we should have submitted an appeal. Have any of you ever tried to challenge the questions to say theses diseases were not included in the rules?

Appeals like this usually don't work for study events. In my experience, the argument that proctors often used (usually at the state level) is that even though they aren't mentioned in the rules, the material is still relevant to the event, and all the teams (not just you) were expected to know this material for the test.

In my opinion, when the rules specifically state "National Level Only" those topics should only be tested at the National level... especially since the topics for Anatomy are fairly specific unlike other events like It's About Time, "anything about the subject" of anatomy and physiology or even about an individual system shouldn't be considered fair game. The rules should be followed when writing tests. And I'm not talking about material that isn't mentioned in the rules, I'm talking about materials that is specifically designated to be tested at the national level only.

watermydoing14 wrote:

Crazy Puny Man wrote:

watermydoing14 wrote: This has happened to me a couple times this year, where the test covers topics that are not included in the rules. First in cell bio, a question asked about meiosis but there was an FAQ that said meiosis would not be on the test, so someone told the event supervisor and they let us change the question to mitosis. Then at state, the test had a lot of questions covering nationals topics, which shouldn't have been allowed but the supervisor didn't seem to know that there even were separate topics only tested at the National level. Maybe we should have submitted an appeal. Have any of you ever tried to challenge the questions to say theses diseases were not included in the rules?

Appeals like this usually don't work for study events. In my experience, the argument that proctors often used (usually at the state level) is that even though they aren't mentioned in the rules, the material is still relevant to the event, and all the teams (not just you) were expected to know this material for the test.

In my opinion, when the rules specifically state "National Level Only" those topics should only be tested at the National level... especially since the topics for Anatomy are fairly specific unlike other events like It's About Time, "anything about the subject" of anatomy and physiology or even about an individual system shouldn't be considered fair game. The rules should be followed when writing tests. And I'm not talking about material that isn't mentioned in the rules, I'm talking about materials that is specifically designated to be tested at the national level only.

Yes, the rules should be followed, but sometimes (a lot of the time) they're not. Occasionally they do start pulling in a few topics in the state exam that should be covered in Nationals. It all depends on the test writer...

That is very true, not only in Anatomy, but in numerous other topics as well.

Anyone know what the events are for the next school year(2015-2016) or is it still the same?

K-Meister wrote:Anyone know what the events are for the next school year(2015-2016) or is it still the same?

As in systems or events? Both can be found here, if that's what you're looking for.

Wait, so one of next year's systems is "aging"? Interesting...

I'm assuming that means the effects of aging on the body...?

coprolite_dipstick wrote:Wait, so one of next year's systems is "aging"? Interesting...

I'm assuming that means the effects of aging on the body...?

I think that it includes aging on the body as you said. But maybe a focus on aging within the skeletal, muscular and cardiovascular systems (Ex: bone and muscle development)