Midterm 2 results
Here are the results of the second midterm. Again, I can't post your individual results but here is an analysis of the complete data set.The overall mean was 84% and the median was 86%.
The highest score was 100%, and, again, two students in different sections managed to achieve this.
Section means were very similar and no section mean was more then 3% away from the overall mean of 82%
The histogram of scores is above and the breakdown by grade is below.
A (ie >=90%) - 38%
B - 37%
C - 17%
D - 6%
F - 2%
There are two issues with individual questions. These changes will be made by your gsi and will not show up on your scantron reports.
Due to the conflicting information presented in Campbell 7th I will accept A or B as answers to question 27 (the island biogeography question).
There was an error on the answer key (my fault, it was due to a last minute change in a question). The correct answer for question 15 (inefficiency of food chain transfer) was B (productivity). Answer C (endotherm/ectotherm) is incorrect. For 152 of you this means your score will go up. My apologies for this mistake.
I have looked closely at all the rest of the questions where either less than two thirds of you got the correct answer (4 questions) or more than 20% of you picked a particular incorrect answer (5 questions) and don't see any other problems.
John
Labels: Examinations
posted by John Latto @ 3:23 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Can you explain why economically developed countries have fertility rates less than 2? I read on a website that the U.S. has a fertility rate of 2 corresponding to a stable population (http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/fertility.htm).
Hmm, explaining WHY could be tough. Probably something to do with improving child health, education, economic aspirations, women's health and education and, well, other things
The US does indeed have a fertility rate of around 2. This is actually one of the highest values for developed countries, the majority of which are considerably less than 2. Every single economically developed European couuntry, for example, is below 2. Other figures (2006 estimates from the CIA world factbook):
United Kingdom: 1.66
Canada: 1.61
Japan 1.40
European Union (as a whole): 1.47
Spain 1.28
Italy 1.28
South Korea 1.27
Singapore: 1.06
In fact I just looked up a list of economically developed countries and out of 32 of them only the US and Israel have fertility rates greater than 2. Only 5 developed countries have fertility rates >1.8 (add Ireland, France and Iceland).
Hi, I should have noticed this blog earlier, its really interesting.
Anyhow, i know this place isn't exactly the right place to ask test questions, but since you guys are talkin about it already...
On campbell 7th edition, page 1154, it reads:
"in developed nations, populations are near equilibrium with reproducetive rates near the replacements level (total fertility rate=2.1)
And while many developed countries would be below replacement, I assumed that it would average to be approximately "2"
Also, question 45 seems to deal with the same issue as question 7--about island biogeography and extinction. I was wondering if you could take a look at that again since many classmates had problems with this particular question = )
thanks alot! btw, the diatoms looked awesome.
This isn't really the ideal venue for this but since I don't have any other way of contacting you, here goes.
The very next sentence in Campbell then reads 'In many developed countries including Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, and the United Kingdom, total reproductive rates are in fact below replacement.'
I will check the audio for exactly what I said in lecture but I'm fairly sure I said something close to this. For the exact figures see the post above. It is actually more extreme than I thought and the average is quite far from 2, closer to 1.6.
Question 7/45 are awkward because I think Campbell is wrong on this. I really try to make what I say consistent with your text but in this case I didn't notice the change between the 6th and 7th edition. If there is an extinction effect with distance, as Cambell describes, it is likely to be small.
Anyhow, the gsi's persuaded me to give you all a break on question 7. I realize the same issue applies to question 45 but in this case I don't see how you can justify it making a BETTER answer than the actual answer. A possible answer, maybe, if you ignore what I said in lecture, but the best answer?
Post a Comment
<< Home