Scioly.org

rodowd wrote:Sorry, I meant the PA States test! It's somewhat odd to say but I'm glad other people found the test as weird as we did...

I thought that the PA state test was fine. It was definitely somewhat heavy on concepts, and lacked problem solving (No Steronet, 3 point, etc.) However, I did like the interpretation questions with the Geologic map.

syo_astro wrote:

InfiniCuber wrote:Does anyone know who the event coordinator at Nationals is gonna be for GeoMaps?

I think it may have been Van Hecke? Don't quote me on that, I feel like I just saw that once or twice before (I think I tried emailing him about it, but he said along the lines that he was busy and stuff).

elephantower wrote:It is Van Hecke, yes, for what it's worth.

Thx!

New test on the test exchange!

Major errors corrected on my geomaps test.

Regarding the rather short and not very difficult Nationals test, does anybody know how ties were broken? We thought we got everything and handed it halfway through and ended up 18th so...

Also, no offense to the event supervisors but I would have really appreciated a much longer and difficult test. I think for next year, it would be good to have at least two topographic maps to interpret (with determining bed strike, dip, and thickness; identifying folds, faults, formations, and unconformities; drawing profiles like true fold profiles, block diagrams, and cross-sections) would be much better (also maybe a few stratigraphic profiles instead of just one and an actual stereonet problem). Ideally, if the test could be around 3-4 times as long (and allowing splitting up the test) and having much more difficult questions (I would say around 100 tasks with at least a dozen involving involved analysis and the majority more demanding than the ones on this year's test) - for instance, I know Dynamic Planet had 90 tasks and 7 large figures (one page each) so the separation would have been much easier (and we ended up getting 3rd on that one). This year's test just seemed to fall quite short of a National-caliber test where 60 National-level teams are participating.

BYHscioly wrote:Regarding the rather short and not very difficult Nationals test, does anybody know how ties were broken? We thought we got everything and handed it halfway through and ended up 18th so...

Also, no offense to the event supervisors but I would have really appreciated a much longer and difficult test. I think for next year, it would be good to have at least two topographic maps to interpret (with determining bed strike, dip, and thickness; identifying folds, faults, formations, and unconformities; drawing profiles like true fold profiles, block diagrams, and cross-sections) would be much better (also maybe a few stratigraphic profiles instead of just one and an actual stereonet problem). Ideally, if the test could be around 3-4 times as long (and allowing splitting up the test) and having much more difficult questions (I would say around 100 tasks with at least a dozen involving involved analysis and the majority more demanding than the ones on this year's test) - for instance, I know Dynamic Planet had 90 tasks and 7 large figures (one page each) so the separation would have been much easier (and we ended up getting 3rd on that one). This year's test just seemed to fall quite short of a National-caliber test where 60 National-level teams are participating.

Maybe they were just expecting low scores? I think with multiple choice it should've been far longer (sounds like there were definitely issues, not saying there weren't). This event probably has lots of people scoring really low...at least when we all do the measurements by hand on the spot at competition I'm pretty sure this results in a lot of low scores. Idk how it was the year before, but in NY I think it's more like the best low score rather than actual high scores...One annoying part to an event like this is keeping a test easily gradable while having really good questions (though, it's certainly doable).

A good test basically has everything they mention in the rules, but the issue is it's a lot...I'm curious if they'll change it. I think when an event gets to "who can memorize the most random geology" or "who can measure the best" there's some serious issues (at least one like this). I don't know if 100 tasks are necessary (sorry if I don't understand what you mean by that), but I could imagine splitting the event into sort of around 15 groups of questions. Legitimately I could imagine making 9ish sections for a test that's hard enough to take the full 50 minutes. Hopefully with another year the event can develop. I'm on the out, but good luck to all as usual . Hey, the bright side is a bunch of my fellow seniors that are graduating have been around since this event started, so maybe at least some better tests can be spread around...I hope so anyway. Maybe you all should just get the guy who writes our Geomaps tests in NY to just share heh >.>.

Syo what are you saying? Geomaps is not just memorizing random geology and measuring accurately, at least if done well. For one thing, you get a binder, you don't have to memorize anything...
Also, guy above me, were you in the 2nd to last timeslot by any chance? Someone left really early there and scared us. About the test, it was indeed ridiculously easy, but I seriously doubt you got every question right (we got 2nd and our tiebreakers were only mediocre, so there can't have been a lot of perfect scores).

elephantower wrote:Syo what are you saying? Geomaps is not just memorizing random geology and measuring accurately, at least if done well. For one thing, you get a binder, you don't have to memorize anything...
Also, guy above me, were you in the 2nd to last timeslot by any chance? Someone left really early there and scared us. About the test, it was indeed ridiculously easy, but I seriously doubt you got every question right (we got 2nd and our tiebreakers were only mediocre, so there can't have been a lot of perfect scores).

I'm not saying it has to be at all. I'm saying the current event I feel can produce a lot of tests like that, though, even with the binder.

I suppose...do you include your NYS test in that category?