cj9101, no OFFICIAL score has ever been published by Garp so "anyone" or any "other forum" couldnot be any more credible than BT. It's been all speculation.
Well I think 40 is 50% correct, yes? Based on passage rates of around 50%, and assuming a normal distribution of scores, the cutoff should be about half. But then again, we do not know the underlying distribution, maybe it is highly skewed to the right? Who knows
Well I think 40 is 50% correct, yes? Based on passage rates of around 50%, and assuming a normal distribution of scores, the cutoff should be about half. But then again, we do not know the underlying distribution, maybe it is highly skewed to the right? Who knows
I think you fell for the same trap I did. The regression coefficient was -.37 something, and is the negative of mean reversion rate. So the autocorrelation is .63 or 1-.37. Unless the question was asking for mean reversion rate? I really don't remember at this point
50% is roughly the historical pass rate. It doesn't have to be that, could be higher or lower. What I'm trying to say is, if you want to go with a historical simulation method, then 50% is your starting point which is what I assumed the other fellow did.
This differs from your assumption of top 2500-2800, which is based on speculation and no historical data
Let's stop your hunt for clues to narrow down the exact precise passing score, cj9101. There is no official source at all.
All are based on estimation and assessment by test takers on their own performance, there just have been numerous discussions that point to some ranges that many happen to agree.
Does anyone have a GARP reference to the CVA graph or the narrative that supports it? I really don't remember reading about the relationship between CVA and fed funds rate.
50% is roughly the historical pass rate. It doesn't have to be that, could be higher or lower. What I'm trying to say is, if you want to go with a historical simulation method, then 50% is your starting point which is what I assumed the other fellow did.
This differs from your assumption of top 2500-2800, which is based on speculation and no historical data
Let's stop your hunt for clues to narrow down the exact precise passing score, cj9101. There is no official source at all.
All are based on estimation and assessment by test takers on their own performance, there just have been numerous discussions that point to some ranges that many happen to agree.
50% is roughly the historical pass rate. It doesn't have to be that, could be higher or lower. What I'm trying to say is, if you want to go with a historical simulation method, then 50% is your starting point which is what I assumed the other fellow did.
This differs from your assumption of top 2500-2800, which is based on speculation and no historical data
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
