tickersu wrote:
TheBigCheese wrote:
tickersu wrote:
TheBigCheese wrote:
You’re not trying to get 100%…just enough to beat the majority. Every review you do, every hour you put in puts you that much closer to beating the majority.
Most of you active in this forum are already well on your way to a pass.
This test becomes more of a mental challenge than anything.
Do you think the exam is curved?
Not curved, but they use the Agnoff method for determining the MPS based on what a borderline candidate would get right or wrong.
You just have to be better than a borderline candidate for that exam. Those are probably better words to describe it. Determination of what is borderline is still subjective. Based on somewhat consistent pass rates, a significant amount do worse than the borderline candidate and fail.
The first statement you made seemed to imply that your testing cohort had an influence on your pass/fail status, so I would agree the second explanation is better.
However, I understood the Angoff method to, essentially, determine the score a minimally competent (not necessarily borderline– it’s that they aren’t borderline and hence, minimally competent) candidate would receive on the exam (based off of an expert board’s evaluation of the exam questions). Your definition would imply, then, that borderline candidates pass, which seems contradictory to the stated goal of passing competent candidates.
Maybe I’m being too particular, but it seems as though your use of the “borderline candidate” has the implication of needing to do better than peers, when it’s more that you need to do at least as well as the testing panel thinks you should (and coincidentally, most of your peers aren’t at the threshold).
In any case, I think you’ve got a good take home message in that preparation will win out in the exam.