Final Project

For our final project, we were instructed to create a map displaying two thematic datasets also known as a bivariate map. This was very similar to the map we created in week 7 and I expanded upon the skills I learned in that module to create a more visually appealing and coherent map.

I chose to work with the first scenario for the objective of my map. I created a map that could be used by the Washington Post to compare mean SAT scores and test participation rates of high school seniors in 2014. Both of these statistics can be compared to state size on a larger scale as I used the United States Albers Equal Area Conic projection.

Since this map focuses on the comparison of average test scores to participation percentages, two comparable data presentation types were used.  For test scores, I elected to use graduated symbols so that I could separate the data into the same number of classes as the participation percentage variables. These symbols were separated into five classes by the equal distribution method. I felt this method was the most appropriate because the symbol values are of equal distance from each other and can be easily compared. The equal distribution method accurately represents each classification (with data classes from 2% to 100%) and paints a picture of a country that has test scores throughout the spectrum. There are states that fall into each class.

To compliment test score classification, I chose similar classification choices for the participation percentages; however, instead of a graduated dot map, I used a choropleth map. This type of map is often paired with a graduated symbol map because the two are appropriate for comparing related variables. For identical reasons, I chose to use equal distribution as my classification method and separated the data into five classes for clarity from 1309 to 1816. Again, there are states that fall into each class.

There were a few tough decisions I had to make regarding the overall design and visual hierarchy of the map. The first was ensuring the states were legible. In order to do this, I had to move and resize Alaska and Hawaii.  Without this adjustment, the contiguous states were too small and it took away from the main focus of the map. The second adjustment was enlarging the Washington, D.C. area. In the map’s original condition, Washington, D.C. was too small to be seen or noticed. The inset map zoomed into a very important part of the dataset as the D.C. area is the smallest attribute and is important in formulating an assessment of data trends. The final design methods I applied to my map were related to colors and framing. I used bright color palates for participation and test scores that do not distract from each other and chose natural tones for the rest of the map. I added a transparent white background under the map subtext to grab the reader’s attention as this is important information about the map. I framed the map as adequately as I could while including the necessary location of the inset map, Alaska, and Hawaii.

I obtained the information used in this map from the provided links (college board SAT statistics and a basemap from the US Census).

This was the most enjoyable project I have completed in this class simply because I knew all of the background information ahead of time and could focus more of my energy on the design of the map. I have really enjoyed this class and I am very confident in my skills going forward. Thank you for providing enjoyable and well-presented material to learn!