<p>I'm trying to figure out how the Math II has a more "generous" curve than Math I, allowing a student to miss more questions on Math II and still earn a high score. I would imagine that those taking the Math II are a self -selected group of those who would all have scored very high on the Math I. So wouldn't it be harder to achieve a high score in comparison to this top group than among the more heterogeneous group of test takers who take Math I? </p>
<p>Also could someone explain, or provide a link, for how the raw scores are converted to the 200-800 scale -- this might help me better understand the system. Thanks for any help!</p>
<p>I believe the way it works is that people take the Math IIC test understanding that it is the test that looks better to colleges. A lot of people take it not knowing what they're doing. They take the test, do badly, and the curve shifts over in everyone's favor. The Math IC test is easier, more people do well on the test, and it becomes a comparatively easier test, thus weighing the overall curve to the high end, and making it harder to get a good score. This is just what I've come to understand of it, and I might be wrong.</p>
<p>math iic has a more generous curve. you can miss 2 problems, and omit 4 and still walk away with an 800, every problem after that results in -10 to ur score. I think math ic's curve was harder: you miss one, 790, 2 = 780, 3 = 770, etc.</p>
<p>I am pretty sure I left 5 blank and missed 2 on IIc (I messed up pretty bad), and I still got 800. I think the curve for Ic is even worse than paniwani conjectured; 1 wrong already drops you to 780.</p>
<p>Wow...so you could get, like, fully eight questions wrong (no omits) and still get like a 750? I'm very encouraged now for my Math IIC in November. I saw the Math IC curve and assumed it was the same as IIC. That would've been brutal. It almost seems like too easy a curve now.</p>