<p>Anyone have the approximate ranges of scores on mc and fr required to get a 5,4, etc...?</p>
<p>bump, need this too</p>
<p>5 is a 68-100.
4 is a 53-68.
3 is 40-52. </p>
<p>2 or less, you do not want to go there.</p>
<p>So I guess if you get 2/4 on your FRs and 36 or more on MC, then you can get a 5 and 26 or more on MC to get a 4.</p>
<p>^^ thanks a lot, where did you get this though? some review books have different scoring charts than others.</p>
<p>that's from no review book (as far as i know). that was the composite score range for the 2002 exam.</p>
<p>That was from the barron's book, so I just did some calculating and figured out how many you need to get right on each section.</p>
<p>lol, I found my barrons:
MC
take num correct - .25(incorrect), multiply by 1.25
FR
for Q1-q5, take score(max is 4) multiply by 1.875
for Q6 take score multiply by 3.125</p>
<p>add all up and the ranges correspond to what QuizQuick mentioned.</p>
<p>it all depends on the MC equating questions</p>
<p>a few MC are the same as last years. They compare the percentage right this year on those vs last year and then adjust it so the mean score would be the same both year (on those few questions).</p>
<p>And then they extrapolate (which they shouldn't do).</p>
<p>however, equating question count for points on APs too (unlike SAT).</p>
<p>I think they like to pick a range of question topics and difficultly level for equaters.</p>
<p>That grading is not too bad. I did not study that much because all I wanted was a three and this is the worst I think I did: 30 MC - 10MC(.25)+ a 4(1.875) + a 1 on the rest so 4(1.875) + 3.125. That is a 52.5 so that is still a four and that would mean I totally bombed FR.</p>