Skip to content

Algebra 2 Trig Conversion – 46 passes, 65 mastery

June 24, 2010 am30 7:27 am

The chart is out before 7:30.

Passing is 46. Mastery (85) is 65.

Notes:

71 converts to 90. And then the next 17 points raise the score only 10.

Most notably, 85, 86, and 87 all earn the student 99.

From 46 (65) to 65 (85), one raw point adds exactly one scaled point. (except that 68 gets skipped). It’s nice to have a linear part of the scale.

Advertisements
13 Comments leave one →
  1. June 24, 2010 am30 9:55 am 9:55 am

    It’s misleading to say 46 is passing. It’s 46/88, which is 52%.

    • frdf permalink
      June 24, 2010 am30 10:25 am 10:25 am

      agreed, a it definitely should have at least been lower than 45.

  2. Anon. permalink
    June 24, 2010 am30 11:09 am 11:09 am

    This chart is generous to the people who don’t need it – the people in the 70’s and 80’s raw. I’ll probably get a 97 or higher with this chart, while I was expecting around a 93. (65/88, which is mastery (85), on a non-curved test would be a 74)
    For the people who needed the failing score to be low, this chart is horrible.
    It is better than the curve for Chemistry, though. That test was harder (I’m great at chem, but there were a ton of trap questions, and there’s a good chance that I fell into some traps) (also graded out of 85 points, not 88), and the score necessary to pass was a 50/85 (that test wasn’t even nice to the high grades. The scores went down by 2 points if you missed 100). I foresee a lot of failing on the chem regents, even more than A2/T.

  3. Noel permalink
    June 24, 2010 pm30 4:13 pm 4:13 pm

    This curve seems stupid…Usually I complain how the curve helps people pass, but not people who do well, but this curve makes a lot of people fail, and inflates a lot grades, for the people that did well… This whole curve idea isn’t working out, they should just add 12 more points to the test, and make it out of a 100.

    • Anonymous permalink
      June 24, 2010 pm30 8:15 pm 8:15 pm

      All the math regents should be 50 multiple choice, 1 pt each, and 10 short answer, 5 pts each. That way, we can have a solid 100-based score AND something to occupy more time during the 3 hour interval. :P

  4. ray permalink
    June 24, 2010 pm30 9:16 pm 9:16 pm

    i think the passing curve should have been lower. maybe not as low as in. alg. (30) but not such a stretch!

  5. Anonymous permalink
    July 2, 2010 pm31 7:08 pm 7:08 pm

    I’ll tell you what they should do – they should get rid of all this “Integrated” BS and go back to a REAL high school mathematics curriculum. The Regents should be:

    1. Algebra I (1 year) – They need to get rid of Exponential Growth/Decay and put it with Algebra II, where it belongs. Set notation needs to go completely. Getting rid of statistics would also be nice, but statistical analysis is a real-life application. Finally, add absolute value equations and inequalities from Algebra II/Trig, Parallel/Perpendicular and Quadratic Applications from Geometry, and Quadratic Inequalities from Algebra II/Trig.

    2. Geometry (1 year) – This is a curriculum that I like, expect for the fact that it repeats some topics from Int. Algebra (see above). Also, arc length, radian measure, and equation of a circle from Algebra II/Trig should be added.

    3. Algebra II (1 semester) – Most of the additions to and subtractions from this course are listed above.

    4. Trig (1 semester) – All Trig from the current Algebra II/Trig curriculum, but in more depth. Real old fashioned trig. This deserves a separate exam.

    There we go. Traditional math put into a sequence that is easy to teach and easier to learn. Still, this doesn’t solve the problem of reformatting the exams. If the state wants to save $, they should stop printing up conversion charts and give a real percentage grade! Try 40 multiple choice, 2 pts each, and a set of 6 5 pt questions, of which the students choose 4.

    If this ever got passed… we’d see the people who should pass the exams pass and the people who should fail them fail.

    • Anonymous permalink
      July 5, 2010 am31 9:43 am 9:43 am

      Or better yet, create a 1-semester Trig/Precalc course with all of the trig + series, sigma notation, etc. That way, Algebra II stays Algebra II.

    • Anonymous permalink
      August 17, 2010 pm31 4:54 pm 4:54 pm

      Or, we should offer SUNY credit for Geometry and Algebra 2/Trigonometry. Think about it! Most students that take these courses are college-bound anyway (Advanced Regents Diploma), so why not give SUNY credit for the courses? After all, the exams are written by the University of the State of New York.

      Something to think about…

      • Anonymous permalink
        August 17, 2010 pm31 8:25 pm 8:25 pm

        I disagree with this on some levels, and agree on others. I disagree in that these courses should be passed by all HS students. They are HS courses! I don’t think these should even be associated with the college system. If HS students pass, they have done what they’re supposed to do. If not, they didn’t.

        On the other hand, it could be an incentive for students to take and pass the course and exam. Still, they are HS courses, and if students choose not to take them… tough.

        Now, Precalculus is another story… ;)

  6. Ambria permalink
    June 25, 2011 am30 2:17 am 2:17 am

    i juss took the trig regents and my raw score was an 80 so what wud that convert to?????

Trackbacks

  1. Algebra 2 / Trigonometry Conversion Chart « JD2718
  2. Index to recent Regents Posts « JD2718

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: