<p>uh i dont think being that angry is going to change anything haha. I bet they've gotten countless emails about teh science already. Let's not try to **** them off and have them make a harsh curve :-p. But ya i agree, where was the fighting scientist passage? This was a weird science from what i've heard.</p>
<p>hey madboy121 could you send the email to me thanks</p>
<p>Ibellibie and golferdude, the PM is out. Enjoy the anger :)</p>
<p>haha i need to read this too. Pm it to me, so i have something to agree with :-p</p>
<p>You got it</p>
<p>
[quote]
In September, they had a passage about the heart, and I believe they asked a question re: the name for the blood vessels (or whatever...my mind completely just went blank!) that take blood to/or away from the heart. So yes, like lami said, it wasn't the first time they required previous science knowledge to ace the test.</p>
<p>I'd like to see what you wrote, Madboy121. Thanks!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, I think a couple of you have taken the September ACT as well? I remember the heart passage, where we had to know that blood in the arteries flows away from the heart, that blood in the veins flows towards the heart. We also had to have some other nuanced understanding of the cardiovascular system and the path of blood through the pulmonary and systemic circuits. The science curve for that testing was normal. If you had a few questions that required prior knowledge, I don't think that's going to make the curve nicer, because it doesn't seem unusual for the ACT to test a bit of hard scientific fact.</p>
<p>I dont think it was the required knowledge that made this hard. I got the gamete question. I think it was just the rediculous length and complexity of the questions. I've heard this test was harder than all the other science tests, and i dont think it was just the gamete question</p>
<p>Haha nice complaint man.</p>
<p>Is the ACT curve for science based on each individual test? </p>
<p>thanks kevinscool</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is the ACT curve for science based on each individual test? </p>
<p>thanks kevinscool
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They calculate curves by giving the questions from your tests ahead of time, in multiple earlier testings, and seeing how well kids do. From that, they calculate the curve. So the curve is based on student performance, but the students they are basing the curve off of are not the ones who took the October testing.</p>
<p>Let's say, though, that the numbers are significantly lower than ACT had predicted. Would they fix the curve so they don't look stupid?</p>
<p>no im pretty sure they curve it so that test scores are consistent with other tests. So if 0 kids got a 36, they'll curve it so the same number of kids got 36s this test as the other tests</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's say, though, that the numbers are significantly lower than ACT had predicted. Would they fix the curve so they don't look stupid?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. If that happened, it would just mean October testers were significantly stupider than the population used to set the curve.</p>
<p>Ouch. Uncalled for lol</p>
<p>haha yeah that was.
madboy i wanna read hah! i hope it does change the ACT people's minds</p>
<p>i'll PM it right now</p>
<p>madboy i'm interested too! lol</p>
<p>Will do. Check your messages.</p>