Scioly.org

Dynamic was better than expected. Less regents questions, more lakes. Also, nice job on 2nd in Aquifers and 1st in Dynamic.

TYG wrote:Dynamic was better than expected. Less regents questions, more lakes. Also, nice job on 2nd in Aquifers and 1st in Dynamic.

At state for Dynamic Planet we had to fill in our answers in a scantron XD. Oh,and yes, congrats fuel. I am jealous

Thank you both. I hope your states run was successful as well, TYG, and mnstrviola you were so close.

I enjoyed the questions on lakes since that was the material I was supposed to cover, and there wasn't anything on them at regionals.

Edit: Back on topic - has anyone seen any concepts not on the list from groundwater.org ?

Yes, there was some heavy math we had to do for station 2, but I do not know if I could explain it to you. It was a major advantage for people who had took algebra though, because it involved some formula and was NOT multiple choice.

It really helped me in my presentation to show that I really, truely understand the vocab words. I just explained the concepts using an extensive knowledge of the vocab words to impress the judge and managed 4th place at NY States even though the model that we built was nothing but a layer of sand, gravel, and a piece of clay thrown in somewhere. To show confidence in the model and in your presentation skills really impress the judges.

Does anyone else think that the States test for Awesome Aquifers was too easy and ridiculous?

Yeah it was, but I shouldn't talk, considering my placing...

The test was like, demonstrate recharge by precipitation, infiltration, saturated zone, etc.

So, basically, pour water, show how the water seeps into the gravel, and show the water at the bottom.

Tramsarran wrote:It really helped me in my presentation to show that I really, truely understand the vocab words. I just explained the concepts using an extensive knowledge of the vocab words to impress the judge and managed 4th place at NY States even though the model that we built was nothing but a layer of sand, gravel, and a piece of clay thrown in somewhere. To show confidence in the model and in your presentation skills really impress the judges.

Does anyone else think that the States test for Awesome Aquifers was too easy and ridiculous?

I probably would have done better if I would have not laughed at the failure of my model when presenting.

Tramsarran wrote:It really helped me in my presentation to show that I really, truely understand the vocab words. I just explained the concepts using an extensive knowledge of the vocab words to impress the judge and managed 4th place at NY States even though the model that we built was nothing but a layer of sand, gravel, and a piece of clay thrown in somewhere. To show confidence in the model and in your presentation skills really impress the judges.

Does anyone else think that the States test for Awesome Aquifers was too easy and ridiculous?

Congrats on fourth! Is there any reason why you used sand instead of gravel for one of the layers? We tried using sand, but it was difficult to see the location of the water table.

Stations 1 and 2... left much to be desired. There wasn't any actual diagram interpretation, and everything but the last question was multiple choice. I liked the concepts chosen for station 4, but there could've been a few more difficult ones thrown into the mix to create a wider gap between scores. I'm sure 1st place and 6th place were only separated by a few points.

I still have my state comp coming up this weekend and i was wondering how you would demonstrate different concepts (eg: porosity, leachate, and contamination) in one container??? Would you divide it up? Or is there any other way to do it?

You demonstrate concepts one at a time, and some can be lumped together in a single demonstration.

For example, you could have a sand and gravel layer and show the differences in pore spaces for porosity. Then for leachate, pretend there's a landfill on top of your aquifer. Drop some food coloring onto the sediment, then spray it with water. As the dyed water infiltrates, both leachate and contamination are shown at the same time.