<p>Does the way CB curves SAT-IIs make any sense to anyone? Why do they have math IIc curved so 5/6 wrong is an 800 but one more is a 790 (and pure and utter defeat in the minds of some CCers). Why not make an 800 harder to get? For the percentiles of most of the tests the 50%tile mark is in the upper 600s. Why not center the scores at 500 (like the reasoning) and follow a standard bell curve? Why make an 800 so attainable in a test like math IIc that students would be willing to retake a 780 for it just because they got one question wrong? Why not make an 800 like 99th%tile and stop the whining because everyone else got an 800. </p>
<p>Anybody have differing thought?</p>
<p>...uh...ok? That would increase the amount of complaints on this site. This thread itself is a complaint. They aren't going to do it so why waste your time posting this?</p>
<p>The goal of the tests isn't really to have such a standard distribution, like it is on the SAT I, which virtually everyone takes. Subject tests measure proficiency in a certain subject. You only take the ones you are well prepared for, so it's not surprising that you would score higher on them than on the Reasoning test.</p>
<p>The Math IIC (supposedly) is on a high level of math, and even getting 5-6 or whatever wrong still means you have a firm grasp of that level of math.</p>
<p>Take Chinese for example. 50%ile is somewhere between 790 and 800. That is because the test is taken mostly by native speakers, so it is to be expected that most would score very well. It would be stupid to make it SO HARD that the average native speaker would get a 500 or something.</p>
<p>I think the reason for such high mean scores is that the tests aren't based on percentiles. For example, a 710 on the Math 1 subject test puts you in the 85th percentile, which is much lower than what a 710 on the SAT Math section would. Same thing with an 800 in Physics only being in the 90th percentile. </p>
<p>Now, if every student were required to take every subject test, those who would otherwise not take that test would score much lower than the people who are better in that subject (obviously). If this were a case, than the mean score would be much much much lower, and your 710 on Math 1 would be a very good score. Instead of being in the 85th percentile, it would be up around the 95th percentile.</p>
<p>So, the reason that the scores may seem inflated is because ETS makes it that way in an effort to not discredit the test taker's ability, which is why (as someone said yesterday) your score is not looked down upon even if a lot of people did better than you.</p>
<p>^ that's all just my guess.</p>
<p>I guess that makes sense, but if ETS and CB did make it harder (ie less curve) to get an 800, it would end the 800 or bust mentality. If people knew at a 760 you were ~10 questions off of an 800 rather than ~2, less people would be so quick to retake a 760. </p>
<p>"...uh...ok? That would increase the amount of complaints on this site. This thread itself is a complaint. They aren't going to do it so why waste your time posting this?" </p>
<p>I'm just wondering why they do it. I'm not complaining, the curve served me well- I got an 800 on USH and know I got at least some questions wrong. I like arguing about the theoretical, and trying to find peoples motives, is that so bad?</p>
<p>Soooo, general consensus is that CB has the generous sub. test curves to make people feel good about themselves?</p>
<p>"I'm just wondering why they do it. I'm not complaining, the curve served me well- I got an 800 on USH and know I got at least some questions wrong. I like arguing about the theoretical, and trying to find peoples motives, is that so bad?"</p>
<p>My bad, I read it as a rant. Disregard my post, I agree with the above posters.</p>
<p>NP, I just like to randomly complain about/berate/theorize on how the College Board and how it could improve :D</p>