- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 1
Hi all,
It looks like this year people with 237 and higher had a second number of 99.
I was looking at some old posts from a few years ago, and it seems like one year people with 239s had 97s, and 99 looked to be set a little higher, maybe like a 241 or so. I believe the mean was similar that year as this year (~221 with SD of 23), so why would the second number have been scored differently?
Also, why do people who took the exam maybe 8+ years ago and IMGs seem to only use the second number when talking about scores? Lastly, why did Goljan reference some of his previous students who got scores like 92, and 95 as if they were extraordinary scores? I know those are good scores, but they aren't exceptionally higher than the mean.
Thanks!
It looks like this year people with 237 and higher had a second number of 99.
I was looking at some old posts from a few years ago, and it seems like one year people with 239s had 97s, and 99 looked to be set a little higher, maybe like a 241 or so. I believe the mean was similar that year as this year (~221 with SD of 23), so why would the second number have been scored differently?
Also, why do people who took the exam maybe 8+ years ago and IMGs seem to only use the second number when talking about scores? Lastly, why did Goljan reference some of his previous students who got scores like 92, and 95 as if they were extraordinary scores? I know those are good scores, but they aren't exceptionally higher than the mean.
Thanks!