Scioly.org

Would division C invitationals be division B states level?

And please, just a few examples? I really can't find anything anywhere.

Plus, I haven't seen any tests with questions on intracratonic basins or specific types of these basins (not like ocean basins or the Wilson Cycle, but the requirements specified by 3d), so what do they really mean by tectonic basins?

matematika wrote:Plus, I haven't seen any tests with questions on intracratonic basins or specific types of these basins (not like ocean basins or the Wilson Cycle, but the requirements specified by 3d), so what do they really mean by tectonic basins?

I think that's exactly what they mean by tectonic basins (so theoretically they should be on tests). I think that there just might be less focus on them this year.

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

matematika wrote:Plus, I haven't seen any tests with questions on intracratonic basins or specific types of these basins (not like ocean basins or the Wilson Cycle, but the requirements specified by 3d), so what do they really mean by tectonic basins?

I think that's exactly what they mean by tectonic basins (so theoretically they should be on tests). I think that there just might be less focus on them this year.

Thanks! How does Invitationals-level compare with States-level?

matematika wrote:

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

matematika wrote:Plus, I haven't seen any tests with questions on intracratonic basins or specific types of these basins (not like ocean basins or the Wilson Cycle, but the requirements specified by 3d), so what do they really mean by tectonic basins?

I think that's exactly what they mean by tectonic basins (so theoretically they should be on tests). I think that there just might be less focus on them this year.

Thanks! How does Invitationals-level compare with States-level?

This really depends on what state and what invitational - NJ States, for div C, was a super basic, rather short test I was sure everybody aced, while the only NJ invitational, PUSO, had a really long, challenging test with interpretive questions of types I haven't seen anywhere else, which the top score on was like 60%.

The Kansas state test was a total scam. There were 4 obscure questions about interpreting data (that no one had ever seen before at the invitationals) and 6 multiple choice questions at the end asking about scientists (eg: Who formally proposed the idea of continental drift?).

The scientists seems reasonable but the interpreting data (unless it was types of waves or earthquakes) is weird. How did you do?

That sounds really unfortunate, but I guess there's not much we can do to force every competition to give a good test :/ What kind of data interpretation was it?

RyanMist wrote:The scientists seems reasonable but the interpreting data (unless it was types of waves or earthquakes) is weird. How did you do?

We did okay (5th), considering the circumstances. It was unfortunate that all of my partner and I's notes were completely useless though- hours and hours of gathering information that was wasted.
The scientist section was also quite sketchy, see my post after this one for examples.

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:That sounds really unfortunate, but I guess there's not much we can do to force every competition to give a good test :/ What kind of data interpretation was it?

True, true. My partner and I split up the test so I don't remember that much. But from what I can, it was (1) completing/labeling an incomplete picture of the Grand Canyon, (2) graphing/plotting volcanoes on a graph, (3) asking where and the rate the Yellowstone Hotspot moved, and I don't quite remember the fourth. (3) was one question that we already had in our notes, but the rest threw us off.
The scientist multiple choice section was also wrong. It asked about who first proposed the idea of hotspots, but didn't have Wilson as one of the answers. It also asked about magnetism and oceanography, but had both Hess, Vine, and Matthews as answer choices.