Scioly.org

I really don't think it matters, as long as it's not some crazy cursive font or wingdings or something. As long as you can read it clearly, you should be fine. I think I mainly use Times New Roman because it's the default.

Calibri is the default on my computer. I used it for my binder, and for some strange reason I can't use any other font and do well.......

Yesterday, I was at Borders and was browsing the clearance section. I was looking around the nature books, and found a ton of copies of the Smithsonian guide. They were only 6 dollars! The design was slightly different, but it was less bulky than the blue/white cover (this one was red/black). Just wanted to share this in case anyone needs a new field guide.

rocketman1555 wrote:

soobsession wrote:

amerikestrel wrote:Does anyone have a preference about the font to use in your binders? I've been mainly using Times New Roman, but I've never really given it much thought until a moment ago. Opinions?

I handwrite most of it, but if I were to use experience from cheat sheet making, I'd say that if you want to write small, use tahoma or verdana... something sans serifs because serifs can sometimes just get in your way when your typing small. I use tahoma.

I handwrite the information sheets for all of the fossils, but for everything else it doesn't matter that much. Times New Roman is probably the most used font in mine because that is the default font on my computer.

Really, handwritten? All of my pages are typed.

paleonaps95 wrote:How about cutting a hole in the side to put the tab through? Then you can put the divider in a sheet protector and it will stay out.

I've considered this, but it would very tricky to get the tab in, especially if it's a divider with the tab at the bottom of the page. Although, it might work if you slit open the entire side of the sheet protector...

How was the Nats test guys? Was it still B div crazy easy, C div crazy hard?

soobsession wrote:How was the Nats test guys? Was it still B div crazy easy, C div crazy hard?

That's what I heard. We got 1st, but the event was 95% the same, according to my teammates, as last year. And C asked about stuff not on the list or in the rules. It wasn't fair to them.

paleonaps95 wrote:

soobsession wrote:How was the Nats test guys? Was it still B div crazy easy, C div crazy hard?

That's what I heard. We got 1st, but the event was 95% the same, according to my teammates, as last year. And C asked about stuff not on the list or in the rules. It wasn't fair to them.

Wait so u got 1st in c div? Wow, very nice

And the test was the same? Wat the heck?

I thought the C test was ok but not amazing. There was a bunch of stuff that wasn't really on the list and it felt like the vast majority of the questions were really easy with just a few weird/hard things.

It's kind of disturbing that some people are saying an almost identical test was given previously. What is meant by last year, though? The test was completely different to that given in Augusta.

E Edgar wrote:I thought the C test was ok but not amazing. There was a bunch of stuff that wasn't really on the list and it felt like the vast majority of the questions were really easy with just a few weird/hard things.

It's kind of disturbing that some people are saying an almost identical test was given previously. What is meant by last year, though? The test was completely different to that given in Augusta.

The B test was nearly the same as last year. The C test was different.

lllazar wrote:

paleonaps95 wrote:

soobsession wrote:How was the Nats test guys? Was it still B div crazy easy, C div crazy hard?

That's what I heard. We got 1st, but the event was 95% the same, according to my teammates, as last year. And C asked about stuff not on the list or in the rules. It wasn't fair to them.

Wait so u got 1st in c div? Wow, very nice

And the test was the same? Wat the heck?

No, my team (stupid conflicts) got first in B division. But our high school placed, I think. The B division test was the same.