If true that is a huge relief. It means the minimum passing score will never be above 70%! Why doesn't the institute just say that and save people the headache?作者: dontknow1987 时间: 2011-7-11 18:44
There are two reasons to keep a secret - you have one, or you don't.作者: smartpants 时间: 2011-7-11 18:44
friends,
is there min section wise pass mark?? if so what are these sections??作者: trogulj 时间: 2011-7-11 18:44
Hi folks,
I just wanna ask. Is there something like number of attempts appearing on the certificate when we pass?
thanks much!作者: Jolyn 时间: 2011-7-11 18:44
Nope!
2006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi folks,
> I just wanna ask. Is there something like number
> of attempts appearing on the certificate when we
> pass?
>
> thanks much!作者: ramdabom 时间: 2011-7-11 18:44
sorry guys i am a little confused by the discussion here..are u guys suggesting that there are min pass marks for each topics??作者: Penny-wenny 时间: 2011-7-11 18:44
Angoff is b.s. that basically means that someone decides the passing score based on what someone who passes should know. That gives them more flexibility than the 70% of the top 1%. Except for the few times that they have tried to bust on some group or other, the old standard wins.作者: Siddimaula 时间: 2011-7-11 18:44
isn't this all just a bunch of fancy words for a "curve"?作者: orang3eph 时间: 2011-7-11 18:44
My understanding of Angoff method is that they think about the minimum qualified guy. On each question they estimate "what is the probability that the minimum qualified guy is going to get this question correctly" (it's got to be somewhere between 0.33 and 1.00, since a blind guess will give you 0.33).
Then they average the probabilities for each question on the exam, multiply by 100, and that gives you minimum passing percentage. Multiply by 240 questions, and you get the minimum passing score. If the MPS is not an integer and you're on the integer just below the MPS, there's a possibility that they'll look at your ethics score and determine whether it justifies pushing you over.
The old method was to take 70% of the average of the top 1%. Presumably when they switched the method and had to start thinking about the minimum qualified candidate, they probably imagined someone who was getting about 70% of the average of the top 1%, so the two methods probably yielded similar results, at least initially.
