<p>Adjusting the curve in the way you suggested would mean that a bulk of the people taking the “harder” tests with the more generous curves would suddenly get a substantially lower score. This would make it more difficult for colleges to get a general idea of how knowledgeable someone is from one subject test to another. For example, a Math I score of 800 might be the equivalent amount of success on the test as a Physics score of 550 or something like that.</p>
<p>The real answer would be to make Math I harder or Physics easier in order to more closely align scores – then a 700 on one test would represent the same level of knowledge as a 700 on another test, which would probably make more sense. But in the end, the CB feels like their curve achieves the same thing. In your examples, the only thing that is happening is that students who are over-achieving by getting all the questions right on a test with a lenient curve are not rewarded above and beyond students who merely answered the minimum necessary to obtain a perfect score. That might seem unfair, but it probably doesn’t affect a ton of people or the curves wouldn’t be where they are. Plus the people who ARE affected still got a perfect score anyway so why complain?</p>
<p>Think of it this way… your math teacher makes some really easy tests and a lot of students do well in his class. Your chemistry teacher give you guys really difficult tests and a bulk of the students to very poorly with one or two still getting an A. Sure, if the chem teacher leaves the scores like they are with a ton of students getting a D, then the one or two who got an A will really look like geniuses. But most of them will be unhappy, plus the teacher will look like he can’t teach. So he curves the grades up.</p>
<p>As for the curriculum point… it’s probably impossible to make the tests match the coursework of schools everywhere in the country. Teachers, books, students, and courses all vary wildly from one school to the next. It’s just a matter of luck at that point. The painful fact of the matter is that if you had the misfortune of being tested on material that was not covered in your school, then you are accurately representing a lack of knowledge by doing poorly on a test that focuses on that information. It seems harsh, but it’s true. When I took the AP Biology test a long time ago, it was probably one of the most difficult tests I ever took up to that point. I prepared long and hard for it. What stinks, however, is that my biology teacher had focused so heavily on so many different aspects of the curriculum that he didn’t have time to even touch on biological classification (phylum, class, order, etc.) except to give us broad generalizations. In his opinion, it was much more important to get into the specifics of biological functions than to just talk about classification. Lo and behold when the test came, this was a key point that was tested. I got a 4… and my college only accepted a 5 for credit. I was so utterly disgusted that I didn’t even take any more AP tests despite taking all available AP courses at school. This came back and bit me in the butt because I ended up in college for an extra semester because I came in with no credits just because of my pouting.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that unfortunately life is often not fair. You need to do what’s best for you within the rules of the game to ensure the greatest chance of success. If you have a strong skill set in a particular subject, take that test. If you don’t, then take the tests with the most lenient curves to get the best scores possible. All standardized testing comes with some measure of unfairness.</p>