<p>Probably. 
I had form O.</p>
<p>I thought the MC was a little rough, but the FRQ were super easy, I just needed a little bit more time.</p>
<p>So did I, and I think it was harder than the othesr so I hope the scale is more generous</p>
<p>Anyone have form D?</p>
<p>I thought that the free response was the same for everyone? </p>
<p>Score 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
5 18.5% 19.5% 18.7% 18.8% 19.4% 5.4%
4 15.6% 15.5% 15.1% 16.5% 16.9% 21.4%
3 16.1% 15.8% 15.4% 15.2% 14.3% 36.3%
2 15.2% 15.1% 14.1% 14.6% 14.6% 29.5%
1 34.6% 34.0% 36.6% 34.8% 34.8% 7.4%
Mean 2.68 2.71 2.65 2.70 2.72 2.88</p>
<p>A bit hard to read, but I would expect a similar score distribution for Chemistry as Bio did in 2013. Notice the drastic change from 2012 to 2013.</p>
<p>Bio became âeasierâ in 2013. I donât think thatâs the same story for Chemistry.</p>
<p>Easier to pass, harder to get a 5 or a 1. 2013 Bio scores almost went to a perfect bell curve, I would expect something similar for chem. </p>
<p>hypno so you are saying that its more likely that people will get into the 2-4 range?</p>
<p>Bio became harder to get a 5 in because people did generally well. Before, you either got it or you didnât. Lots of memorization before. Now, itâs like 7 MC questions and FRQ performance that sets 4s from 5s. Of course thereâs still memorization, but they wanted to focus on big concepts and critical thinking. For bio, this is generally pretty easy (except for molecular genetics or whatever).</p>
<p>Chem did not feel like the same way, especially because of the rigor behind truly understanding the content and knowing how to apply it in a lab. Though this is all speculation of course.</p>
<p>Do they give points for effort?
'Cause if they do I think I have a chance at a one.
No, but seriously, for the FRQ I thought that if I skipped some I could get back to them but never did. </p>
<p>Correct, thatâs my opinion. If you look at Bioâs trend from 2008-2012, then see how different the distribution is in 2013, it appears to me they are purposefully trying to get the distribution to more closely resemble the classic bell curve.</p>
<p>I canât imagine they would do that in Bio and not follow up with something similar in Chemistry.</p>
<p>True, with last yearâs ap bio class no one in my school got a five but the year before had around 15.</p>
<p>At a certain point a bell curve would be stupid. Imagine a bell curve for AP Calculus BC. A majority of those students know their craft pretty well. A bell curve would literally be like 85% for a 3, 90% for a 4, and 95% for a 5, instead of like a general 70%. Those arenât real numbers but after a certain point you just canât tell me and say these people arenât highly qualified.</p>
<p>This is just my 2 cents, but I felt the exam was extremely difficult. Our teacher over prepared us and didnât try to teach the exam; she taught us everything. I feel like i did enough for a 4 or even a 5. The exam was extremely demanding when it came to conceptual understanding. And for everyone claiming to do well on the multiple choice, some of those questions are supposed to be nearly impossible so unless you self-studied you missed at least 10. I did not get to FRQ 7 because I ran out of time, and that is an issue they should assess for next yearâs exam. Oh, and I had form O for all who were wondering so I had the nasty #7.</p>
<p>@DMAzai: interesting point. In my class on the practice MC (60 questions). The standard deviation was way less than it was on older practice exams (2008 and 2002). I think this makes it more difficult to differentiate the scores.</p>
<p>@paulyatomic I definitely agree. I"m pretty sure I passed, buthoping for a 4 or 5.</p>
<p>Really, college board isnât suppose to bell curve at all. They are to take data from college students that have taken the test, and align their exam scores with their class grade. A 5 would represent a student that had a strong A, a 4 would represent students that had an A- to B+, etc⊠Itâs just interesting last yearâs Bio scores were distributed so differently than previous years, and in a bell shape, at that.</p>