<p>
What’s your point? The most recent test out of the ones you mentioned was administered in April 2007: more than four years ago. The curves found in those tests are not very indicative of ones today.</p>
<p>Unless there was a significant change in the way they made the tests, then they should be indictive. From precedent, we know that -1=34 would be a harsh carve, and as you pointed out, it is rare. We might as well be debating -1=36.</p>
<p>eek if they did that i hope they would make the 33 -2-3</p>
<p>i think i got -3 and this does not seem like good news.</p>
<p>
Yes, a Reading curve of -1 = 34 is rare. A Reading curve of -1 = 36, however, is even rarer if even existent these days. Let me emphasize that I’m not saying this Reading curve will be -1 = 34 since I did not take this particular test and cannot comment on the difficulty of its Reading section, just that some of you are being ignorant by simply scoffing at the idea without any data to back up your statements.</p>
<p>I never said it won’t be a -1=34, I’m saying it’s extremely unlikely.</p>
<p>I don’t think a -1=36 ever existed. Only time I can see that happening is if they made a question, and later found out two of the answers could work for it or something like that.</p>
<p>~Who received their scores today?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We are scoffing at an idea without any data to back up its statements…</p>
<p>^^ ditto. To quote Christopher Hitchens:</p>
<p>“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof”</p>
<p>what sections do we think had the best curves?</p>
<p>Math almost always has the most generous curve.</p>
<p>~it seems like science has the best to me</p>
<p>I took a practice test (Princeton Review) that had -3=35 for English</p>
<p>I actually find science’s curve to be the most brutal of all (possibly with the exception of English, but you have plenty of time for English, the questions are easy)</p>
<p>whats the most generous science curve you guys have seen. are there ever -1=36? or lets say -3 =33-34</p>
<p>PR’s tests do not necessarily represent those of the ACT. I found PR to be slightly harder than those in the red book. I always got about +3 in every section from the red book over the PR book.</p>
<p>
I got the impression that you were scoffing at the idea of a -1 = 34 Reading curve ever having existed at all but maybe that was just me. Anyway, I’m getting tired of typing “-1 = 34”, so let’s just say the curve will be what it will be. Neither of us can change it by arguing the likelihood of one score pattern versus another.</p>
<p>~what are some of you guys score predictions?</p>
<p>—Random interjection—</p>
<p>Mike, that quote about “asserting without proof” or whatever is awesome. I read to myself and I thought, “Damn. I sound so legit.”</p>
<p>Science is definitely the most brutal 95% of the time. </p>
<p>I think there is a 70% chance that -1 for reading is 34. I didn’t think it was too difficult, but it definitely wasn’t pretty easy. It was medium.</p>
<p>A -1=34 is extremely unlikely but possible.</p>
<p>
The June 2010 science section had a -1=36, but -2=34.</p>