Binder Events

[pb5754]

Furthermore, diagrams - most questions involving labeling diagrams use existing diagrams and blur out the labels (e.g. the Wilson cycle, Combustion Engine, etc.).
While changing up diagrams could be done easily to deter some teams from just having the same diagram on their notes, it'll be a lot harder to do that if teams have access to a much greater amount of diagrams.

Not necessarily -- teams would just put the same diagram in their notes. There were many instances where I had the same/very similar diagrams as the ones on my notes when I did DP last year. So I don't think replacing binders with notesheets would make a big difference.

[Name]

I don't think the knowledge that competitors are now allowed binder will significantly change the tests at any competition. That being said, I think that binders are a good/bad thing depending on the quality of the test. In poorly written tests, especially with copied questions (although for the most part, I don't think most people bother putting keys in their binder although I could be wrong), binders would probably make things even worse. However, in high-quality tests that require a deep conceptual understanding to do well, a binder would probably be beneficial.

[Umaroth]

Furthermore, diagrams - most questions involving labeling diagrams use existing diagrams and blur out the labels (e.g. the Wilson cycle, Combustion Engine, etc.).
While changing up diagrams could be done easily to deter some teams from just having the same diagram on their notes, it'll be a lot harder to do that if teams have access to a much greater amount of diagrams.

Not necessarily -- teams would just put the same diagram in their notes. There were many instances where I had the same/very similar diagrams as the ones on my notes when I did DP last year. So I don't think replacing binders with notesheets would make a big difference.

At Mira Loma Invitational Div B DP, I took the last page of the answer sheet and filled it in without looking at the question because I noticed the outline of a very overused glacial landscape diagram. Every event has diagrams that are overused to death, hopefully this discourages those types of questions.

[JoeyC]

So, after doing only binder events (2 of which don't demand binders for a specific purpose such as ID) for the season, here's my current analysis:

Pros:
You don't have to worry about what you put in there, content-wise
Things are easier to read when not in super small font
They can be easier for proctors to regulate (though look at con number 4)

Cons:
Binder notes are expensive to print (especially if you're using color)
Binder notes are heavy - at Brown I had to bring my notes and laptop, a ~25 pound total (a fifth of my body weight).
Binder notes reward finding a ton of obscure data that wouldn't be as heavily rewarded in note sheet events due to the unavailability of space
Rules regarding what you can put into a binder so long as it is "secure" aren't clear - if you've seen my questions about my DP textbook, you'll understand

In summary: binders make it easier for competitors to not have to worry about fitting diagrams, charts, and other such information on their notes. However, they're costly and bulky, can confuse proctors, and more reward endlessly browsing the web for obscure pieces of data than regular sheet notes.

What do you all think of this evaluation?

[Name]

I'd mostly agree. Also I'd like to point out most of the cons are resolved by using a laptop (as in astro). Whether or not replacing more binder events with laptop is a good idea idk.

Binder notes reward finding a ton of obscure data that wouldn't be as heavily rewarded in note sheet events due to the unavailability of space

I wouldn't call this a con. With both binder events and cheat sheet events, having a core understanding is essential to doing well. Past that, binder events encourage more deeper research then cheat sheet events.

Also just my personal opinion but a binder should not be heavily depended on. You should be able to answer the majority of questions without your binder. My astro binder is semi non existent, and I've found much more personal success in fossils by lowkey double cheat sheeting it with an occasional reference to the binder.
That being said it kinda depends on events. I've dipped into orni a bit and I don't see any way you're not completely reliant on your binder for bird info.

[pb5754]

Also just my personal opinion but a binder should not be heavily depended on.

100% true

[JoeyC]

It's mainly a con in that if a super-random question is asked (for example, subsets of data about a certain type of phytoplankton from a certain year) if a team has that, they get the point. If they don't , they can't really do much about it - especially given that you can do extensive research (have all of the Oceanography category of Wikipedia in your notes) but still get miffed because your note making process didn't cover that exact source.

More or less, its a con because now unreasonably obscure questions now have a greater ability to randomly decide competitions due to the fact that you can do in deep research and never encounter it. (I just encountered vibracoring in the Polytechnic DP test when taking it as a practice. It's so vague that there are only ~2 articles on it on google that are meant for public consumption, and it didn't even show in either of my 2 reference textbooks. But if a team randomly had it, like I randomly have all the Oscillatory systems of the world as well as a couple of random dipole eddies and other such random phenomena, I'd lose that point - it rewards more plain random data than actually researching deep into topics such as the mechanisms of ENSO - an important subdivision of Oceanography).

Also, this is mainly in evaluation of events that don't need binders (not id events like ornith).

[Name]

It's mainly a con in that if a super-random question is asked (for example, subsets of data about a certain type of phytoplankton from a certain year) if a team has that, they get the point. If they don't , they can't really do much about it - especially given that you can do extensive research (have all of the Oceanography category of Wikipedia in your notes) but still get miffed because your note making process didn't cover that exact source.

More or less, its a con because now unreasonably obscure questions now have a greater ability to randomly decide competitions due to the fact that you can do in deep research and never encounter it. (I just encountered vibracoring in the Polytechnic DP test when taking it as a practice. It's so vague that there are only ~2 articles on it on google that are meant for public consumption, and it didn't even show in either of my 2 reference textbooks. But if a team randomly had it, like I randomly have all the Oscillatory systems of the world as well as a couple of random dipole eddies and other such random phenomena, I'd lose that point - it rewards more plain random data than actually researching deep into topics such as the mechanisms of ENSO - an important subdivision of Oceanography).

Also, this is mainly in evaluation of events that don't need binders (not id events like ornith).

eh test writers can always ask super random things regardless of binder event or not- I don't think they really take into consideration what resources you have that much while writing

[SilverBreeze]

It's mainly a con in that if a super-random question is asked (for example, subsets of data about a certain type of phytoplankton from a certain year) if a team has that, they get the point. If they don't , they can't really do much about it - especially given that you can do extensive research (have all of the Oceanography category of Wikipedia in your notes) but still get miffed because your note making process didn't cover that exact source.

More or less, its a con because now unreasonably obscure questions now have a greater ability to randomly decide competitions due to the fact that you can do in deep research and never encounter it. (I just encountered vibracoring in the Polytechnic DP test when taking it as a practice. It's so vague that there are only ~2 articles on it on google that are meant for public consumption, and it didn't even show in either of my 2 reference textbooks. But if a team randomly had it, like I randomly have all the Oscillatory systems of the world as well as a couple of random dipole eddies and other such random phenomena, I'd lose that point - it rewards more plain random data than actually researching deep into topics such as the mechanisms of ENSO - an important subdivision of Oceanography).

Also, this is mainly in evaluation of events that don't need binders (not id events like ornith).

eh test writers can always ask super random things regardless of binder event or not- I don't think they really take into consideration what resources you have that much while writing

I think JoeyC's point is that the random question will essentially not exist because with the constraint of a cheatsheet, no team will have the random data and will all get it wrong. However, with a binder, it is essentially shove as much stuff in as you can hoping you get lucky and the test writer covers that random topic and not a different one. Meanwhile, I am being sad in Orni even though I love the topic having never done a binder event before.

[Name]

It's mainly a con in that if a super-random question is asked (for example, subsets of data about a certain type of phytoplankton from a certain year) if a team has that, they get the point. If they don't , they can't really do much about it - especially given that you can do extensive research (have all of the Oceanography category of Wikipedia in your notes) but still get miffed because your note making process didn't cover that exact source.

More or less, its a con because now unreasonably obscure questions now have a greater ability to randomly decide competitions due to the fact that you can do in deep research and never encounter it. (I just encountered vibracoring in the Polytechnic DP test when taking it as a practice. It's so vague that there are only ~2 articles on it on google that are meant for public consumption, and it didn't even show in either of my 2 reference textbooks. But if a team randomly had it, like I randomly have all the Oscillatory systems of the world as well as a couple of random dipole eddies and other such random phenomena, I'd lose that point - it rewards more plain random data than actually researching deep into topics such as the mechanisms of ENSO - an important subdivision of Oceanography).

Also, this is mainly in evaluation of events that don't need binders (not id events like ornith).

eh test writers can always ask super random things regardless of binder event or not- I don't think they really take into consideration what resources you have that much while writing

I think JoeyC's point is that the random question will essentially not exist because with the constraint of a cheatsheet, no team will have the random data and will all get it wrong. However, with a binder, it is essentially shove as much stuff in as you can hoping you get lucky and the test writer covers that random topic and not a different one. Meanwhile, I am being sad in Orni even though I love the topic having never done a binder event before.

still doesn't prevent some teams from randomly knowing it or guessing it correctly