Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:World History Midterm Exam (view source)

Revision as of 03:11, March 30, 2009

332 bytes added ,  03:11, March 30, 2009
→‎Ongoing rank: 3 top scores deserve an additional point due to a subtle flaw in question 20
Line 29: Line 29:     
Congratulations to all the students for their superb work!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
 
Congratulations to all the students for their superb work!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
 +
 +
'''Note on the final scores''':  the three top papers, scoring 38, 40 and 42, have a valid claim to add an additional point to their score due to the correct way that they interpreted question 20.  Can you spot the flaw in question 20 that these top scorers identified?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
    
== Suggested improvements on exam ==
 
== Suggested improvements on exam ==
    
*In the chivalry extra credit question for boys, the good sportsmanship should not be limited to "athletic" contests.  Non-athletic contests, including chess matches or exams, should also be subject to good sportsmanship under chivalry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
 
*In the chivalry extra credit question for boys, the good sportsmanship should not be limited to "athletic" contests.  Non-athletic contests, including chess matches or exams, should also be subject to good sportsmanship under chivalry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,425

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/646407"

Navigation menu