<p>Anyone know like an estimate of the curve for math 1?</p>
<p>It’s pretty brutal: [SparkNotes:</a> SAT Subject Test: Math Level 1: Scoring SAT II Math IC](<a href=“SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular Study Guides”>SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular Study Guides)</p>
<p>Dam.
why’s this so hard, when math 2 is so nice</p>
<p>what curve?</p>
<p>i’m basically saying that you have to literally get every question right and skip 0 to get an 800.</p>
<p>@ Wazzah, because math II is conceptually more difficult, though, in my opinion, is still around the same difficulty in terms of problem solving as the math I is.</p>
<p>2-3 wrong in Math IC and bam. good bye 800 :'(</p>
<p>wow, if you miss or omit even one you get a 780.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In fact, three wrong is 740.</p>
<p>buh… i think i said 800 good bye. so that is certainly not 800, which is obvious. lol.</p>
<p>^ Which is why I used “in fact.”</p>
<p>Silverturtle//if you want to get very picky, then fine. The reason is, I have no spiteful experiences with you whatsoever, and I certainly do not see the point picking out about even the most esoteric and farfetched topic such as the usage of a transition word, “In fact”. </p>
<p>Let’s get back to the question. The obvious point is, everyone knows that Math IC is harsh in curves. Why not take IIC instead?</p>
<p>^ Trust me: I have made no attempt to engage in debates with you. If I disagree with someone or need to come across as mildly defensive in order to clarify something, I will do so; it is not a hostile move.</p>
<p>For some weird reason, your points have implied tones that are actually hostile. Or at least it is perceived by me.</p>
<p>^ Because I gathered that you were incorrectly perceiving that to be the case, I clarified my intention.</p>
<p>silverturtle//may i just ask you to stop pointing me out, at least? i feel that i am forcing myself to use the most accurate grammar possible, yet i find that doing so is not really what i used to be. i feel all tensed up and experience a “cognitive dissonance.”</p>
<p>btw you can’t really “incorrectly perceive” sth, because perceiving is done by the self, not by any other person. you are not obviously me, which leads to the point that…</p>
<p>“incorrectly perceive” is perfectly logical. One can perceive something that is incorrect; the adverb serves to indicate this. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you mean?</p>
<p>jesus christ…</p>
<p>I again assure you that I have nothing against you. I am not sure where you got that impression, as I did not say anything that I would expect to be offensive in our argument.</p>
<p>That is because you are incessantly bothering me with arbitrary grammar violations. Here it’s already 2:00 in the morning. allow me to brush up my homework and sleep. Amoto queramus seria ludo.</p>