Visualization for public policy (2016)
3 likes565 views
The document outlines a comprehensive approach to visualization in public policy, emphasizing user-centered design, data storytelling, and iterative testing. It discusses various research methods to understand user needs and improve visualization strategies, covering topics from problem definition to design considerations like typography and visual mapping. The poster presents case studies and statistical analysis related to sentence reduction practices in the Rhode Island superior court system, examining factors influencing judicial decisions.
![Council on Empirical Legal Studies
(2007)
A Systematic Study of Motions to Reduce Criminal Sentences
in Rhode Island Superior Court (1998-2003)
by Laura Braslow and Ross E. Cheit
Righteous Research Brown University
Question
Methods
Results
• Most states allow for sentence
reduction
• Judicial discretion is generally
unconstrained
• Few jurisdictions require a
statement of reasons
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the following individuals for providing research
assistance throughout this project: Bailey Langner, Jesse Maniff, Robert
Powers, Jacquelyn Rudis, Stephanie Skaff and Owen Washburn.
Special thanks to L. Arthi Krishniswami for designing this poster.
• Motions identified electronically
• Universe sample of 597 cases
• All files checked by hand
• Race data obtained from prison
system
Based on a universe sample of all cases where Motions to Reduce Sentence were brought
over a five-year period, this study utilizes descriptive statistics, multivariate models and
textual analysis to describe the practice of sentence reduction in the aggregate and to isolate
some of the determinants of motion outcomes. Key variables include case and statutory
factors (type of crime, filing window, violations), defendant factors (age, gender, race, prior
criminal history), representation (private attorney, public defender or Pro Se), judges
(individual judges, whether the judge hearing a motion to reduce is the original sentencing
judge), and qualitative factors (reasons for reduction given by defendants).
Descriptive
Most jurisdictions allow criminal defendants to bring post-conviction motions to reduce
their sentence. Conceptually, the primary justification for sentence reduction policies is to
allow for modification of original sentences which may have been excessive or unfair when
compared to co-defendants or other defendants as a group. Other reasons may include
mercy, or rewarding defendants for good behavior. This mechanism could be an avenue for
correcting inappropriately long sentences, but the virtually unfettered discretion given to
judges in ruling on these motions could also be an invitation to abuse. This study seeks
to empirically examine the practice of sentence reduction in the Rhode Island Superior
Court system.
How often to judges reduce criminal sentences?
How much does the practice vary by judge?
How much does it vary by crime?
Are some of the stated reasons for sentence
reduction more successful than others?
What are the determinants of outcomes of
Motions to Reduce Sentence?
Poster prepared for Second Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, New York University School of Law (November 9, 2007)
Research challenges: The Rhode Island State
criminal records database reflects only whether a
Motion to Reduce Sentence was filed. It does not
record the outcome of that motion, nor does it reflect
any resulting change in sentence as a result. Key
documents such as defendants' filed motions do not
routinely appear in the physical case file, and are often
boilerplate. Written judges' orders recording the
outcome of motions are hardly ever part of the physical
case file.
Outcomes of Motions to Reduce Sentence by Filing Window (n=534)
How do trial court judges exercise their discretion to reconsider criminal sentences?
within filing window
ruled on
not ruled on
other
withdrawn
passed
granted
denied
197 (37%)
total cases
534
152 (28%)
70 (13%)
82 (15%)
27 (5%)
8 (1%)
10 (2%)
45 (8%)
outside of window
ruled on
not ruled on
other
withdrawn
passed
granted
denied
337 (63%)
255 (48%)
98 (18%)
157 (29%)
47 (9%)
11 (2%)
23 (4%)
82 (15%)
Outcomes of Motions to Reduce Sentence by Pre-MRS Violation (n=534)
no pre-MRS violation
ruled on
not ruled on
other
withdrawn
passed
granted
denied
409 (77%)
total cases
534
317 (59%)
134 (25%)
183 (34%)
52 (10%)
14 (3%)
26 (5%)
92 (17%)
pre-MRS violation
ruled on
not ruled on
other
withdrawn
passed
granted
denied
125 (23%)
90 (17%)
34 (6%)
56 (10%)
22 (4%)
5 (1%)
8 (1%)
35 (7%)
Multivariate
Variable Coefficient Odds Ratio
[Exp(B)]
Constant -3.122 0.044
Case and Statutory Factors
In 120 Day Window 0.292 0.747
Pre-MRS Violation -0.372 0.690
Offense Type
Violent Crimes 0.672 1.958
Sex Crimes -0.631 0.532
Child Sex Crimes 1.013 2.753
Theft 0.921 2.512
Financial Property Crimes 0.118 1.125
Drug Crimes 1.410*** 4.094
Nuisance Crimes 22.955 --
Traffic Crimes 0.929 2.533
Destruction Crimes 0.563 1.756
Other Crimes / Unknown -- --
Attorneys and Judges
Attorney Type
Private / Court-Appointed 1.203*** 3.329
Public Defender 0.971** 2.640
Pro Se -0.146 0.865
Other / Unknown -- --
Judges
Clifton 1.128** 3.090
Dimitri 0.616 1.852
Fortunato 2.256**** 9.543
Gale 0.579 1.784
Gemma 1.238** 3.449
Indeglia -0.960 0.383
Israel 1.256* 3.512
Keough 1.833*** 6.256
Krause 0.154 1.167
Pfeiffer 1.094*** 2.985
Procaccini 0.826* 2.284
Rodgers 1.296* 3.656
Sheehan -0.746 2.109
Thompson -1.193*** 3.297
Thunberg -1.469*** 4.346
Williams -0.740 0.477
Other -- --
Motion Judge Different from
Sentencing Judge -0.173 0.842
Defendant Characteristics
Prior Criminal History 0.109 1.116
Defendant Age 0.000 1.000
Defendant Gender -0.292 0.747
Defendant Race
White -0.012 0.988
Black -0.056 0.946
Hispanic -0.057 0.945
Other/Unknown -- --
Qualitative Factors
Defendant Arguments for Reduction
Mercy 0.007 1.007
Rehabilitation / Reform 0.328 1.389
Excessive Sentence -0.110 0.896
Procedural 1.319** 3.741
Witness / Informant 0.232 1.261
Other / Unknown -- --
Model Chi-square 95.903**** 95.903****
Pseudo R2 0.237 0.237
% Cases Predicted 75.8 75.8
-2 Log Likelihood 550.845 550.845
* Significant at p < 0.10
** Significant at p < 0.05
*** Significant at p < 0.01
**** Significant at p < 0.001
Case and Statutory Factors
• Statutory factors (motion brought within filing window, motion
brought after a probation violation) are not statistically significant.
• Most offense types are not significant – however, sentence reductions
are significantly more likely to be granted in cases involving drug crimes.
Attorneys
• Sentence reductions are much more likely to be granted in cases where
the defendant is represented by a private attorney.
• Sentence reductions are somewhat more likely to be granted when
the defendant is represented by a public defender.
Judges
• Individual judges are the most strongly and consistently significant
determinant of outcomes of motions to reduce sentence.
• Whether the judge ruling on a motion to reduce sentence is the same
as or different from the sentencing judge is not a statistically significant
factor in motion outcomes.
Defendant Characteristics
• Individual defendant characteristics do no appear to be significant
in whether motions to reduce sentence are granted or denied.
• Defendant race, gender, age and prior criminal history were all tested,
and none were found to be statistically significant.
Qualitative Factors
• The reasons given by defendants in support of their motions to
reduce sentence are not very significant to motion outcomes.
• The only reason which has a statistically significant impact on
motion outcomes is procedural arguments, for example the need to
transfer a defendant to federal custody.
Model Significance and Explanatory Power
• The model of determinants of motion outcomes is highly significant,
and has reasonable explanatory power.
Logistic Regression Results -- Motion Outcomes, Granted or Denied (n=534)
Next Steps in Multivariate Analysis
•The last major component of the analysis of motion outcomes
(grant or deny) will be to incorporate initial sentence lengths into
the model as a potential determinant.
• We also plan to produce two parallel models to isolate the determinan
ts of reduction length for cases where sentence reductions are granted,
one based on absolute reductions (i.e., number of months taken off of
a defendant’s sentence), and one based on the percentage of the initial
sentence which is removed through a granted motion to reduce sentence.
note: percentages are based on total cases
note: percentages are based on total cases
Outcomes of Motions to Reduce Sentence (n=534)
total cases
ruled on
not ruled on
534
407 (76%)
granted
168 (31%)
denied
239 (45%)
passed
74 (14%)
withdrawn
19 (4%)
other
34 (6%)
127 (24%)
note: percentages are based on total cases
Figure 3: Probability of Granting Sentence Reduction Motion, Severe Case, by Judge
Other
judges
(10.2%)
0 100
40.3%
Overall
(12.5%)2.1%
Motion grant probability (%), severe cases by high volume judges (A through P)
Figure 1: Overall Probability of Granting Sentence Reduction Motion, by Judge
Other
judges
(23%)
0 100
64.6%
Overall
(27.9%)5.6%
Motion Grant Probability (%), by high volume judges (A through P)
Figure 2: Probability of Granting Sentence Reduction Motion, Mild Case, by Judge
Other
judges
(28.4%)
0 100
70.4%
Overall
(33.5%)7.1%
Motion grant probability (%), mild cases, by high volume judges (A through P)
• Distribution from the mean, flow chart
• BW
• Print, presentation, poster
• Value
• Typography](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/designforpolicy-presentation-2016-161010193730/85/Visualization-for-public-policy-2016-25-320.jpg)
Visualization for public policy (2016)
- 1. Visualization for Public Policy L. Arthi Krishnaswami Brown University October 2016
- 2. Outline Process Policy Design Design Problem Users Context Content: The Data Story Design Visual Variables: Bertin Information Design: LATCH Visual Mapping Iterative Design Usability Testing Design Considerations Typography Hierarchy/Architecture Examples Geographic Information Systems Emergency Management Maps Election Coverage Earnings and education attainment Facebook growth (location, time, category) NAUDL Smart Disclosures Research toolbox FOIA 1997 Quasi-Public Open or Shut? McMartin poster Community of Trust RyeCatcher Experience Map CB PSAT reports
- 3. Process
- 5. Define the problem Explore users, content&context Generate concepts and ideas Refine the design Evaluate with users User-centered design process Adapted from Cooper, Deal/O’Leary, Evenson. Build the product
- 6. Process: Visualization for policy • Problem • Users/Context/Content • Data Story • Design (Visual Variables) • Test/Adapt • Launch Problem definition Users/ Content/ Context Data StoryTest/Adapt Design Launch
- 7. Define the Problem Users Content Context
- 9. Context • Format • Mode • Time • Goal
- 10. Content: The Data Story • Descriptive • Narrative • Argumentative • Decision-making
- 11. Design
- 12. Visual Perception Bertin Jacques Bertin, Semiology of Graphics.
- 13. Retinal Variables Bertin Jacques Bertin, Semiology of Graphics.
- 14. Information Design L o c a t i o n A l p h a b e t T i m e C a t e g o r y H i e r a c h y - Richard Saul Wurman, Information Anxiety
- 15. Visual Mapping Mackinlay, J.D.: Automating the Design of Graphical Presentations of Relational Information, Computer Science Department, Standfort University, 1986
- 16. Iterative Design • Sketching and low-fidelity prototypes • Medium-fidelity prototypes • Hi-fidelity prototypes
- 17. Charts and visualizations • Chart types • Orientation and labels • Keys and legends • Comparison • Typography • Tufte, Playfair, Tukey
- 18. Chart types • Line charts • Pie and doughnut charts • Bar charts • Area charts • XY (scatter) and bubble charts • Stock charts • Flow charts • Box plots • Column charts • Maps
- 19. Typography • Line length • Text size • Color • Contrast • Serif versus sans serif
- 20. Format Poster Paper Digital • Page architecture • Levels of reading • Reading distance • Color/BW and reproduction • Audience and time • Number of pages • Sequence • Narrative • Color/BW • Print/digital • Sequence • Narrative • Time • Interactivity • Audience and format
- 21. User Research TM Design solutions beyond words Asktheuser User can articulate needs User not yet conscious of needs Observetheuser Research Toolbox Twenty-three research methods to discover what your users really want. 191 Survey or Questionnaire Personal Inventory Fly on the Wall Think Aloud Protocol7 13 These research methods are a sampling of the tools available as you work to understand your users. Each method varies by both the kind of research activity taking place, and the sort of needs you’ll discover. In some cases, all you need to do is ask. The users can articu- late their needs. At other times, the research can lead both you and your users to a better understanding of what they really want. The right methods will uncover latent needs—needs the users themselves haven't even recognized. These methods are best for gathering information quickly and directly. Use caution with these methods, since what people say and what they do are often quite different. Tell Me The places and things people interact with provide clues about what they value, what tasks they want to simplify, and what kinds of tools or technology they prefer. These methods give you access to those insights. Show Me These methods offer a practical alternative to following users around 24/7. Instead, arrange for them to give you reports of their activities, so you just get the highlights. Get a Report The sooner you start turning ideas into prototypes, the sooner you can put those prototypes in front of real users and catch your own misconceptions. Test it early, test it often—and save yourself time and money! Test It Research methods that tap into the creativity of real-life users can lead to extremely valuable insights. These methods can help users express concepts or feelings that they might not be able to put into words otherwise. Get Creative Watch and Listen These methods show you what tasks and goals your users work to achieve on a daily basis. More importantly, they help you recognize obstacles to your users’progress, which often translate into golden opportunities for your new product. ©2005ThoughtFormInc.(www.thoughtformdesign.com)andDaedalusExcel(www.daed.com)7944 10 Photo Diary 12 Shadowing 8 Web Eavesdropping 13 Fly on the Wall 15 AEIOU18 Prototype Evaluation 9 Beeper Study 1 Survey or Questionnaire 2 Focus Group 3 Interview A? 4 23 UOIEA 16 Task Analysis 17 Behavioral Mapping 14 Video Observation 19 Think Aloud Protocol A 11 Adopt a User 21 Card Sort 22 Collage 20 Draw Your Experience 6 Guided Tour 7 Personal Inventory Velcro Modeling 5 Guided Storytelling Knowledge Mining
- 22. Examples
- 23. McMartin: Book 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 aprmarfebjandecnov may 19841983 at preliminary hearing at trial interview only complainant at retrial Figure 2.6 CII Interview Sequence—Children at Preliminary Hearing, Trial and Retrial. 187 41 13 10 3 Icons do not represent the order of interviews within the month. Compiled by author from assorted CII and court documents. Some children were interviewed twice. Last interview before charges were finalized 10 May Legend may 1985 june 1985 july 1985 02 05 22 01 05 10 15 20 25 30 01 05 10 15 Legend 25 30 first interview Number of Children one interview two interviews more than two interviews Totalinterviews second interview third or greater interview Figure 5.7 Kelly Michaels Investigative Interview Sequence, All Children by Number of Interviews. ... * Fifty children had first interviews; two children were interviewed in a single session on June 17. Compiled by author from assorted court documents. two children interviewed together Each icon represents one interview. The vertical stacks of icons indicate the number of interviews in one day. The space between 5 to 22 May is not drawn to scale. 49 26 824 21 * 5 • Bar chart • BW • Print, presentation • Value • Keys and legends
- 25. Council on Empirical Legal Studies (2007) A Systematic Study of Motions to Reduce Criminal Sentences in Rhode Island Superior Court (1998-2003) by Laura Braslow and Ross E. Cheit Righteous Research Brown University Question Methods Results • Most states allow for sentence reduction • Judicial discretion is generally unconstrained • Few jurisdictions require a statement of reasons Acknowledgements The authors thank the following individuals for providing research assistance throughout this project: Bailey Langner, Jesse Maniff, Robert Powers, Jacquelyn Rudis, Stephanie Skaff and Owen Washburn. Special thanks to L. Arthi Krishniswami for designing this poster. • Motions identified electronically • Universe sample of 597 cases • All files checked by hand • Race data obtained from prison system Based on a universe sample of all cases where Motions to Reduce Sentence were brought over a five-year period, this study utilizes descriptive statistics, multivariate models and textual analysis to describe the practice of sentence reduction in the aggregate and to isolate some of the determinants of motion outcomes. Key variables include case and statutory factors (type of crime, filing window, violations), defendant factors (age, gender, race, prior criminal history), representation (private attorney, public defender or Pro Se), judges (individual judges, whether the judge hearing a motion to reduce is the original sentencing judge), and qualitative factors (reasons for reduction given by defendants). Descriptive Most jurisdictions allow criminal defendants to bring post-conviction motions to reduce their sentence. Conceptually, the primary justification for sentence reduction policies is to allow for modification of original sentences which may have been excessive or unfair when compared to co-defendants or other defendants as a group. Other reasons may include mercy, or rewarding defendants for good behavior. This mechanism could be an avenue for correcting inappropriately long sentences, but the virtually unfettered discretion given to judges in ruling on these motions could also be an invitation to abuse. This study seeks to empirically examine the practice of sentence reduction in the Rhode Island Superior Court system. How often to judges reduce criminal sentences? How much does the practice vary by judge? How much does it vary by crime? Are some of the stated reasons for sentence reduction more successful than others? What are the determinants of outcomes of Motions to Reduce Sentence? Poster prepared for Second Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, New York University School of Law (November 9, 2007) Research challenges: The Rhode Island State criminal records database reflects only whether a Motion to Reduce Sentence was filed. It does not record the outcome of that motion, nor does it reflect any resulting change in sentence as a result. Key documents such as defendants' filed motions do not routinely appear in the physical case file, and are often boilerplate. Written judges' orders recording the outcome of motions are hardly ever part of the physical case file. Outcomes of Motions to Reduce Sentence by Filing Window (n=534) How do trial court judges exercise their discretion to reconsider criminal sentences? within filing window ruled on not ruled on other withdrawn passed granted denied 197 (37%) total cases 534 152 (28%) 70 (13%) 82 (15%) 27 (5%) 8 (1%) 10 (2%) 45 (8%) outside of window ruled on not ruled on other withdrawn passed granted denied 337 (63%) 255 (48%) 98 (18%) 157 (29%) 47 (9%) 11 (2%) 23 (4%) 82 (15%) Outcomes of Motions to Reduce Sentence by Pre-MRS Violation (n=534) no pre-MRS violation ruled on not ruled on other withdrawn passed granted denied 409 (77%) total cases 534 317 (59%) 134 (25%) 183 (34%) 52 (10%) 14 (3%) 26 (5%) 92 (17%) pre-MRS violation ruled on not ruled on other withdrawn passed granted denied 125 (23%) 90 (17%) 34 (6%) 56 (10%) 22 (4%) 5 (1%) 8 (1%) 35 (7%) Multivariate Variable Coefficient Odds Ratio [Exp(B)] Constant -3.122 0.044 Case and Statutory Factors In 120 Day Window 0.292 0.747 Pre-MRS Violation -0.372 0.690 Offense Type Violent Crimes 0.672 1.958 Sex Crimes -0.631 0.532 Child Sex Crimes 1.013 2.753 Theft 0.921 2.512 Financial Property Crimes 0.118 1.125 Drug Crimes 1.410*** 4.094 Nuisance Crimes 22.955 -- Traffic Crimes 0.929 2.533 Destruction Crimes 0.563 1.756 Other Crimes / Unknown -- -- Attorneys and Judges Attorney Type Private / Court-Appointed 1.203*** 3.329 Public Defender 0.971** 2.640 Pro Se -0.146 0.865 Other / Unknown -- -- Judges Clifton 1.128** 3.090 Dimitri 0.616 1.852 Fortunato 2.256**** 9.543 Gale 0.579 1.784 Gemma 1.238** 3.449 Indeglia -0.960 0.383 Israel 1.256* 3.512 Keough 1.833*** 6.256 Krause 0.154 1.167 Pfeiffer 1.094*** 2.985 Procaccini 0.826* 2.284 Rodgers 1.296* 3.656 Sheehan -0.746 2.109 Thompson -1.193*** 3.297 Thunberg -1.469*** 4.346 Williams -0.740 0.477 Other -- -- Motion Judge Different from Sentencing Judge -0.173 0.842 Defendant Characteristics Prior Criminal History 0.109 1.116 Defendant Age 0.000 1.000 Defendant Gender -0.292 0.747 Defendant Race White -0.012 0.988 Black -0.056 0.946 Hispanic -0.057 0.945 Other/Unknown -- -- Qualitative Factors Defendant Arguments for Reduction Mercy 0.007 1.007 Rehabilitation / Reform 0.328 1.389 Excessive Sentence -0.110 0.896 Procedural 1.319** 3.741 Witness / Informant 0.232 1.261 Other / Unknown -- -- Model Chi-square 95.903**** 95.903**** Pseudo R2 0.237 0.237 % Cases Predicted 75.8 75.8 -2 Log Likelihood 550.845 550.845 * Significant at p < 0.10 ** Significant at p < 0.05 *** Significant at p < 0.01 **** Significant at p < 0.001 Case and Statutory Factors • Statutory factors (motion brought within filing window, motion brought after a probation violation) are not statistically significant. • Most offense types are not significant – however, sentence reductions are significantly more likely to be granted in cases involving drug crimes. Attorneys • Sentence reductions are much more likely to be granted in cases where the defendant is represented by a private attorney. • Sentence reductions are somewhat more likely to be granted when the defendant is represented by a public defender. Judges • Individual judges are the most strongly and consistently significant determinant of outcomes of motions to reduce sentence. • Whether the judge ruling on a motion to reduce sentence is the same as or different from the sentencing judge is not a statistically significant factor in motion outcomes. Defendant Characteristics • Individual defendant characteristics do no appear to be significant in whether motions to reduce sentence are granted or denied. • Defendant race, gender, age and prior criminal history were all tested, and none were found to be statistically significant. Qualitative Factors • The reasons given by defendants in support of their motions to reduce sentence are not very significant to motion outcomes. • The only reason which has a statistically significant impact on motion outcomes is procedural arguments, for example the need to transfer a defendant to federal custody. Model Significance and Explanatory Power • The model of determinants of motion outcomes is highly significant, and has reasonable explanatory power. Logistic Regression Results -- Motion Outcomes, Granted or Denied (n=534) Next Steps in Multivariate Analysis •The last major component of the analysis of motion outcomes (grant or deny) will be to incorporate initial sentence lengths into the model as a potential determinant. • We also plan to produce two parallel models to isolate the determinan ts of reduction length for cases where sentence reductions are granted, one based on absolute reductions (i.e., number of months taken off of a defendant’s sentence), and one based on the percentage of the initial sentence which is removed through a granted motion to reduce sentence. note: percentages are based on total cases note: percentages are based on total cases Outcomes of Motions to Reduce Sentence (n=534) total cases ruled on not ruled on 534 407 (76%) granted 168 (31%) denied 239 (45%) passed 74 (14%) withdrawn 19 (4%) other 34 (6%) 127 (24%) note: percentages are based on total cases Figure 3: Probability of Granting Sentence Reduction Motion, Severe Case, by Judge Other judges (10.2%) 0 100 40.3% Overall (12.5%)2.1% Motion grant probability (%), severe cases by high volume judges (A through P) Figure 1: Overall Probability of Granting Sentence Reduction Motion, by Judge Other judges (23%) 0 100 64.6% Overall (27.9%)5.6% Motion Grant Probability (%), by high volume judges (A through P) Figure 2: Probability of Granting Sentence Reduction Motion, Mild Case, by Judge Other judges (28.4%) 0 100 70.4% Overall (33.5%)7.1% Motion grant probability (%), mild cases, by high volume judges (A through P) • Distribution from the mean, flow chart • BW • Print, presentation, poster • Value • Typography
- 26. Geographic Information Systems: Lead Model I-85 ONSLOWBER KELEY G U ESS KNOX BUCHANAN LANCASTER CLARENDON HIL LCREST SEDGEFIELD BRO AD FO REST ENGLEWOOD BERKELEY BROAD I-85 ONSLOWBER KELEY G U ESS KNOX BUCHANAN LANCASTER CLARENDON HIL LCREST SEDGEFIELD BRO AD FO REST ENGLEWOOD BERKELEY BROAD I-85 ONSLOWBER KELEY G U ESS KNOX BUCHANAN LANCASTER CLARENDON HIL LCREST SEDGEFIELD BRO AD FO REST ENGLEWOOD BERKELEY BROAD $10,002.00 - $33,074.00 $33,074.01 - $45,930.00 $45,930.01 - $60,880.00 $60,880.01 - $78,960.00 $78,960.01 - $120,888.00 $3,500.00 - $13,700.00 $13,700.01 - $20,600.00 $20,600.01 - $28,900.00 $28,900.01 - $41,300.00 $41,300.01 - $59,100.00 ° 200 Yards 2% - 25% 26% - 35% 36% - 55% 56% - 75% 76% - 100% I-85 WATTS IREDELL ONSLOWBER KELEY G U ESS CLUB KNOX BUCHANAN LANCASTER CLARENDON HIL LCREST SEDGEFIELD BR O AD GREEN FO REST ENGLEWOOD BERKELEY BROAD New Homes Constructed/Significant Renovations 1993-1999 New Homes Constructed/Significant Renovations Post 1999 ° 0.25 Miles WALLTOWN CONTEXT WALLTOWN TRINITY PARK WATTS HOSPITAL-HILLANDALE OLD WEST DURHAM DUKE HOMESTEAD TRINITY HEIGHTS NORTHGATE PARK DUKE PARK° 0.25 Miles I-85 ONSLOWBER KELEY G U ESS KNOX BUCHANAN LANCASTER CLARENDON HIL LCREST SEDGEFIELD BRO AD FO REST ENGLEWOOD BERKELEY BROAD I-85 ONSLOWBER KELEY G U ESS KNOX BUCHANAN LANCASTER CLARENDON SEDGEFIELD BRO AD FO REST HIL LCREST ENGLEWOOD BERKELEY BROAD I-85 ONSLOWBER KELEY G U ESS KNOX BUCHANAN LANCASTER CLARENDON SEDGEFIELD HIL LCREST BRO AD FO REST ENGLEWOOD BERKELEY BROAD ° 200 Yards Owner Occupied Housing Renter Occupied Housing Change to Renter Occupied No Change In Tenure Change to Owner Occupied I-85 WATTS IREDELL ONSLOWBER KELEY G U ESS CLUB KNOX BUCHANAN LANCASTER CLARENDON HIL LCREST SEDGEFIELD BRO AD GREEN FO REST ENGLEWOOD BERKELEY BROAD ° DurhamBloodLevel ScreeningResults DURHAM 1995-1999 DURHAM 2000-2003 7444 9661 2814 2527 401 285 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Lessthan5 Greaterthan9 between5and9(inclusive) WalltownBloodLevel ScreeningResults WALLTOWN 1995-1999 WALLTOWN 2000-2003 89 82 47 22 8 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 Less than5 Greaterthan9 between5and9(inclusive) Durham Leadmodel 2005 Nonresidential/No Data Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 200 Yards ° 200 Yards 200 Yards WALLTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ST. TERESA NEIGHBORHOOD High Crime Density Low Crime Density Locations of Violent/Drug Related Crimes 2003 New Homes Constructed/Significant Renovations Housing Tenure Housing Value Lead Exposure Risk 2003 Crime Locations Walltown Surrounding Area Walltown Neighborhood Analysis Children's Environmental Health Initiative (866) 264-7891 A Research and Community Outreach Program of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University This Map Was Produced by For Questions Please Call Toll Free: cehi@env.duke.edu http://www.env.duke.edu/cehi/ Percent Increase 1999 1999 2005 2005 Data Sources:Durham County; Durham Police Department; Habitat for Humanity; Self Help; and the NC Childhood Lead Posioning Prevention Program • Maps • GIS • Color v. BW • Contrast • Poster, paper
- 27. Emergency Management Maps 1 LenoxAve Adam Clayton PowellBlvd Broadway Amsterdam FrederickDouglassBlvd StNicholasPlace MorningsideAve Fifth Ave ParkAve ABCD 23 ABCD 1 ABCD W 131W 130 W 135 W 125 W 129 W 132 W 137 W 136 W 135 W 140 W 145 W 148 3 W 133 W 137 125 W 140 W 135 3 E2 E1 E1 E2 The City College of New York W 138th & Convent Avenue NY, NY 10037 Thurgood Marshall Academy for Learning W 135th & Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard NY, NY 10037 Evacuation Center Danger Zone 1 Danger Zone 2 Subway Stop EASTRIVER N Henry Hudson Parkway FranklinDRooseveltDrive • Map • Color v. BW • Readability • Orientation, hierarchy • Navigation and way finding
- 28. Election Coverage http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election http://www.270towin.com/maps/nbc-battleground • Maps, bars, tables • Color • Digital • Levels of information • Keys, labels, legends
- 29. NY Times (value, size, location) 08/29/2007 12:22 PMThe New York Times > National > Image > Changes in Economic Well-Being Page 1 of 2http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/08/29/us/29censusweb.ready.html August 29, 2007 Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company The New York Times > Business > Image > Comparison Consuming http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/05/13/business/200805... 2 of 3 5/15/08 9:34 AM • Lines, graduated circles, maps, tables • BW, neutral tone • Print and digital • Comparison • Keys and legends as image
- 30. NY Times (color, location, category)
- 31. Facebook growth (location, time, category)The New York Times > Business > Image > The Road to 200 Million March 29, 2009 Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company • Maps, line, area, network • Color, contrast • Multiple charts • Narrative • Progression of time
- 32. NAUDL Your Dollar National Board & Sponsors $1.13 Local School Systems $2.73 Local Private Partners $3.02 Total $7.94 10 Dollars Students Schools $1000 $5000 $10,000 $25,000 $50,000 52 104 261 522 .25 1.25 2 6 12 Your Investment Brings Opportunities to New Schools and Students Your Contribution to the NAUDL Attracts Other Public and Private Investors The Impact of Your Support Non-Debater Debater RateofHighSchoolGraduation Urban Debaters are Three Times More Likely to Graduate from High School High School Graduation Rates Non-Debaters 55% Debaters 77.4% Note: Chicago Public Schools students who participated in the Chicago Debate League are more likely to graduate than their non-debating peers, even after accounting for prior achievement. Note: After statistically accounting for self-selection, debaters are on average three times more likely to graduate than nearly identical students who did not debate. A COST EFFECTIVE, EVIDENCE-BASED INVESTMENT For more information, see www.urbandebate.org/costeffectiveness Urban Debate: A Proven, Evidence-Based Approach… ProbabilityofReaching College-ReadinessBenchmark ACT College-Readiness English Total Rounds Debated During High School 20% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Total Rounds Debated During High School ACT College-Readiness Reading 20% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100 ProbabilityofReaching College-ReadinessBenchmark Note: Black male debaters are 50% more likely to be college-ready in English than non-debaters. Note: Black male debaters are 70% more likely to be college-ready in Reading than non-debaters. 50% more likely to be college ready in english 70% more likely to be college ready in critical reading 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 15 30 45 LifetimeEarnings (MillionsofDollars) Years Professional Degree Bachelors Degree HS Graduates Dropouts $116,664 $53,725 $27,815 $17,798 $1,749,960 $805,875 $417,225 $266,970 $800,910 Earning Degrees Increases Expected Income for Urban Debaters $5,249,880 $2,417,625 $1,251,675 $3,499,920 $1,611,750 $834,450 $533,940 That Transforms Life Trajectories College Graduation Rates by Unweighted High School GPA 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PercentGraduatedFrom4-year CollegeWithin6Years Unweighted High School GPA 3.6+3.1 - 3.52.1 - 2.52.0 or less 2.6 - 3.0 Distribution of GPA 2 5 10 15 4 DebatersNon-Debaters PercentofStudents High School GPA Note: Black male urban debaters increased their GPAs by 0.5, dramatically improving their chances of graduating from the four-year college. • Pie, bar, line, regression • Single color • Print, presentation • Narrative and highlights • Decision-making
- 33. Smart Disclosures Ideas42 Research Brief Aesthetics and Valuation High design Images shown Colorful, pleasing images. Image layout Pleasing and well-designed placement of images. Typography Researchers attemped to use pleasing typeface without affecting fluency or readability. Message Justified text is visually pleasing. Data table Bold design catches the eye. Low design Images Older, less aesthetically pleasing buildings and photos. Typography Less pleasing font with same readability. Image layout Odd borders and uneven placement on page. Data table Bland data table presentation. Message Unjustifed text is less visually pleasing but potentially easier to read. A standard economic analysis might assume that how informa- tion is presented should have little or no influence over how consumers evaluate the information – rather, only content should matter. Behavioral economics argues that aesthetics can influence information processing and decision making. Research by Claudia Townsend and ideas42 Affiliate Suzanne Shu has shown that the aesthetics of how information is pre- sented can have large impacts on people’s financial judgment. Perhaps most surprisingly, aesthetics can influence even the investing judgments and decision making of trained financial professionals. The researchers asked 55 finance-trained individuals to rate the importance of various factors in investment decisions. Profit margins and past and future stock price information were rated most important; the aesthetics and design were rated amongst the least important. The researchers then gave a randomly assigned packet of companies’ annual reports, and asked them to rank order based on willingness to invest. The annual reports had aesthetic differences such as these, below: 6 varieties on display JAMJAM JAM JAM JAM JAM 10x jam purchased Fewer shoppers stop More shoppers stop to sample Choice overload = fewer purchases 24 varieties on display JAMJAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAMJAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAMJAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAMJAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAMJAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM JAM • Custom design charts • Color • Print, presentation, digital • Narrative • Comparison of data
- 34. Smart Disclosures Ideas42 High design Low design Financial advisor The difference in rate of recommending investing in the company between was approximately equal to the effect of a 20% increase in previous year’s revenue. vs. = revenue 20% change the default text reminder force decision annual enrollment reminder 401(k) Enrollment: Potential Nudges enrolled default path: not enrolled not enrolled Potential Nudges auto-enroll and opt-out text reminder or not annual enrollment reminder • Flow chart • Indicator values • Print, presentation, digital • Comparison • Narrative impact
- 35. Freedom of Information Act (1997) Access to Public Records An Audit of Rhode Island’s Cities & Towns A Comprehensive Analysis of the Implementation of the Open Records Law
- 36. Nike: Fuel Map
- 37. Community of Trust A Community of Trust in Education, © 2016 RyeCatcher LLC. Created for the Digital Media + Learning Trust Challenge, funded by the MacArthur Foundation. M edicalS ervices Physician Psychiatrist D entist N urse Principal Special Education Coordinator Special Education Teacher Teacher Tutor Classroom Aide Intervention Specialist Student Support Literacy Specialist Approved Private School Online Educational Resources Autism Spectrum Support Counselor / Therapist School Counselor School Psychologist Social Worker Psychologist M entors & A dvisors M entors / Advisors Education Advocate Transition C oordinator C ollege C ounseling C areerC ounseling R ehabilitation Therapies H earing / D eafness Specialist V ision Specialist Speech Pathologist O ccupationalTherapist O ccupational/ VocationalRehabilitation PhysicalTherapist C om m unity & Fam ily S ervices C om m unity or R ecreation C enter C hildren,Youth,and Fam ily Services Faith-B ased Services G ang Intervention H om eless Services Transportation INNERCIRCLE/ C USTODIAL ACCESS INSCHOOL/ACCES S BY VIRTUE OF ROLE OUTOFSCHOOL / A CCESS AS GRANTED B R O A D ER LEA R N IN G EN V IR O N M EN T / A C C ES S IM PLIC IT O R A S G R A N TED Medical Services Behavioral & Emotional Support Transportation Community & Family Services Rehabilitation Therapies Academic Support Student-Centered Circles of Support Inner Circle includes the students’ parents, family members, or other custodians. They frequently make decisions on behalf of the student. They have access to all student information, and serve as gatekeepers, providing consent for services and access to student information as needed. The Broader Learning Environment encompasses enrichment experiences available to students outside of school, including sporting events, field trips, and other extracurricular activities. Providers’ access to student information is frequently limited, while consent and permission are granted tacitly. The People and Resources that are available to enter a student's circle at any time create the foundation for the community of trust. When engaging with students, these resources are granted appropriate levels of access and the necessary information to meet the students’ needs. Supported with appropriate technology and tools, in-school and out-of-school providers become a dynamic network, working together to provide optimal support for each student’s academic, behavioral, and social development. Increased transparency, accountability, and communication among providers ensures that needed services are provided and that no student slips through the cracks. In-School Providers typically have access to student information by virtue of their role in the school. Parents frequently grant in-school providers access to necessary student information as part of a consent process with schools at the start of the academic year. A cadem ic S upport Out-of-School Providers frequently need explicit consent from custodians to provide services, and might become part of a student’s circle of support at any point in the academic year. RyeCatcher makes it easy for parents to provide, track, and manage consent for services with out-of-school providers. Behavioral & Emotional Support Mentors & Advisors
- 38. RyeCatcher Experience Map Signs & Signals Screening Evaluation Evaluation Report Progress & Reevaluation Primary Goal Support Process- Based Opportunities Emotional Experience Global Opportunities Stages Process & Documents Student/Parent Experience Guiding Principles Help parents and students navigate the special education process by providing information and guidance. Provide access to consolidated information about process, people, and resources to support students. Humanize process by orienting the experience around building a circle of support of people and other resources. Provide a secure framework for the utilization and exchange of student information to improve outcomes. Transition At-birth diagnosis Parent notices behavioral issue Hearing test Physician diagnoses hearing impairment Teacher observes reading deficiency 4-yr university / community collegeAcademic assessments Report cards / attendance records Classroom observation HHS preschool recommendation must evaluate within 60 days multiple potential followups to manage IEP/ILP process: goal setting, intervention tracking, celebrating goal achievement. multiple potential 2-3 year reevaluation cycles. no IEP Parent must identify signs & signals of potential disability at home or in school, and learn about how to find appropriate support for child. If child is diagnosed at birth, parent proceeds to evaluation and IEP report stage. Resources to help identify whether child has special need. Resources to help families of students with physical disabilities. uncertainty, fear, anxiety, helplessness Resource or tool to inform parents about questions to ask in the context of the phase. out-of-school in-school If student exhibits signs of a special need, parent and school perform different types of screening. Screening process varies between disability types. Additionally, school, parent and community provide student with “natural supports”, Universal and/or classroom-based interventions. Resource for information about screening process, legal requirements, and forms of screening available in and out of school. Descriptions, definitions and examples of natural support and universal intervention. Resource that connects parents with natural supports outside of school. Resource that explains response to intervention at the school level. confusion about the process, feeling of inequity, helplessness, anxiety, anger about process and lack of control Resource that describes roles and respon- sibilities in and out of school at each step in process. Parent can request a formal evaluation of child by a school psychologist to determine whether accommodations and an individualized education program are necessary. Evaluations may also be performed by independent professionals. Resource that explains the evaluation process in a step-by-step fashion. Resource to explain legal framework for evaluation process. (Rights of the child.) fear, anxiety, financial worry, concern for equitable treatment of child, confusion about school’s legal requirements Resource that describes the data access, security, and privacy framework and implications. (HHS, PII, etc.) Receive results of the evaluation report containing: recommendation, category of disability (if one has been identified), diagnosis, IEP goals, strengths and needs of the student. If an IEP has been recommended, parent will receive a procedural safeguard document. Resource that describes appeal process, re-evaluation and legal framework. Resource that provides step-by-step walkthrough of procedural safeguard, and its implications. Resource that describes next steps for a child that has/does not have an IEP. confusion, deluge of documentation and legal information, anxiety, anger at diagnosis, worry about labeling child Resources to help find parents like me. Goalbook Review annual progress. Modify and update IEP goals. Review interventions, both in and out of school, to determine progress and achievement of IEP goals. Resource that collects and presents parents with available resources, service providers, and other tools to help my child succeed and achieve goals. Resource or tool to help parents track progress aligned to goals and curriculum skills. when goals are met, positive feelings; when goals are not met, negative feelings, fear and anxiety; helplessness; agency Resource that provides parent/teacher and advocate ratings and reviews of service providers in local/regional areas. Goalbook Provide transition plan detailing transition of student out of school and into the work- place. Required for students aged 14 or older. Resource that helps parents and students find service providers, and other resources to help students transition out of HS. Resource that describes the types of supports available for students after HS. Resource that lists vocational, technical, career, or educational service providers that help child prepare for a career. fear, anxiety, confusion about how the process and legal requirements vary from those that apply in the school environment Resource or tool to help parents track meetings, documents, evaluations, assess- ments, reports, and other interactions. nonlinear, nonstandard, potentially cyclical nonlinear, nonstandard, potentially cyclical linear, multi-input, potentially cyclical eval meeting; 1-month & periodic followups annual IEP review, 2-3 year reevaluations student-specific, nonlinear Physical / cognitive evaluations Permission to evaluate Procedural safeguard Occupational/ vocational rehab Transition plan (14+) Transition plan (14+) Trade school Evaluation report Physical therapy Agreement to waive reevaluation Request for independent evaluation Individualized education/learning program Request for reimbursement meeting | decision point journey through process required documentation potentially cyclical stage IEPIEP Evaluation report L. Arthi Krishnaswami, arthi.krishnaswami@gmail.com
- 39. PSAT Score Report Plus Your Selection Index Sum of scores in critical reading, mathematics and writing skills. Percentile Compares your performance with college-bound juniors. Online Access Code Number & Operations Algebra & Functions Geometry & Measurement Data, Statistics & Probability On test day, you told us that you’re interested in To learn more about college majors, visit My College QuickStart™. There you can also: • Learn about related careers • Search for colleges • Take a personality test Your Scores Overall Score See your projected SAT® scores at www. collegeboard.com/quickstart. Score Range Scores in this range are similar to yours. Percentile The percentage of test takers who scored below your score. Your Skills These skill categories can help you understand your score and focus your study efforts before you take the SAT. To learn more about your skills and review suggestions for improvement based on your test performance, visit www.collegeboard.com/ quickstart and sign in using your code below. Your Answers See the questions and review explanations of the answers at www.collegeboard.com/ quickstart. You can also ask your counselor for a copy of your test book back so you can review the questions. Name: Year: Grade: School Code: Optional Code: Critical Reading Mathematics Writing Skills Entry Requirements (Information you provided on your answer sheet.) High school student: Year to complete high school and enroll full-time in college: Years to be spent in grades 9–12: U.S. citizenship: Eligibility Information National Merit Scholarship Corporation (NMSC) uses a Selection Index based on PSAT/NMSQT® scores as an initial screen of over 1.5 million students who enter its scholarship programs. (See reverse for more information.) Determining the Meaning of Words Author’s Craft: Style, Tone & Literary Devices Reasoning & Inference Organization & Ideas Understanding Literary Elements Grammatical Relationships between Words Words & Phrases Used to Modify or Compare Phrases & Clauses Correctly Formed Sentences Relationships of Sentences & Paragraphs Question CorrectAnswer YourAnswerDifficulty Question CorrectAnswer YourAnswerDifficulty Question CorrectAnswer YourAnswerDifficulty Question CorrectAnswer YourAnswerDifficulty Question CorrectAnswer YourAnswerDifficulty Question CorrectAnswer YourAnswerDifficulty Correct Answer Your Answer Next Steps Go online to see your projected SAT scores, learn how to improve them, and find critical college and career planning information. Take the next step today! Go to www.collegeboard.com/quickstart and sign in using your code below. 20 80 20 80 20 80 Online Access Code Get suggestions for improving your skills before you take the SAT. www.collegeboard.com/quickstart Find out why you missed questions. www.collegeboard.com/quickstart Key P Correct e Easy o Omitted m Medium u Unscorable h Hard Scoring • Correct answer = PLUS 1 POINT. • Omitted answers = O POINTS. • Wrong answers to multiple-choice questions = MINUS 1/4 POINT. • Wrong answers to math questions 29–38 = NO LOST POINTS. • Points are totaled, then converted to scores on the 20–80 scale. Find out why you missed questions. www.collegeboard.com/quickstart 1 A P e 2 B P e 3 A C m 4 C A h 5 B E h 6 D P e 7 B P m 8 D o e 9 B P m 10 E B h 11 D P h 12 C P m 13 A P m 14 B A m 15 A P e 16 C P m 17 A P e 18 E P m 19 B P m 20 B E m 21 E P m 22 D B h 23 E P m 24 A P m 25 D P m 26 D P e 27 D P e 28 A P e 29 C P e 30 D E m 31 A B h 32 E P h 33 B A h 34 D P e 35 A P e 36 E A e 37 C P m 38 B P m 39 B C h 40 C A h 41 B P h 42 C E m 43 E P m 44 C P m 45 D B m 46 A B m 47 C E e 48 E A m 1 A P e 2 C E e 3 A P m 4 B E m 5 E B h 6 B D e 7 A C m 8 C E h 9 C D m 10 A C h 11 B E h 12 B E m 13 D E m 14 D E m 15 E C e 16 B P m 17 D P e 18 A B m 19 C E m 20 E P m 21 C P m 22 B P h 23 E P m 24 C P m 25 D A m 26 A P e 27 A B e 28 C A e 29 C A m 30 D P m 31 B A h 32 A P h 33 D C h 34 D P e 35 E A e 36 A D e 37 B P m 38 C P m 39 C P h 1 D P e 2 E P e 3 E P e 4 C P e 5 B P e 6 B P e 7 C o e 8 A P m 9 B P m 10 C P m 11 B o m 12 C P m 13 B D m 14 A D h 15 E D m 16 E P m 17 A C h 18 E o h 19 D A h 20 D C h 21 B P e 22 C P e 23 A P m 24 D P m 25 B P m 26 D P e 27 C A m 28 A B m 29 7 P m 30 3 P m 31 4.5 or 9/2 P m 32 1000 P m 33 10, 12, 14, or 16 P h 34 8/5 or 1.6 P h 35 29 P h 36 108 50.9 h 37 42 4.2 m 38 8 10 h 12 of 15 questions correct (1 omitted) 5 of 5 questions correct (0 omitted) 8 of 10 questions correct (2 omitted) 6 of 8 questions correct (1 omitted) 9 of 15 questions correct (0 omitted) 3 of 5 questions correct (0 omitted) 8 of 10 questions correct (2 omitted) 2 of 8 questions correct (2 omitted) 4 of 10 questions correct (0 omitted) 3 of 12 questions correct (1 omitted) 1 of 5 questions correct (2 omitted) 6 of 10 questions correct (2 omitted) 1 of 6 questions correct (4 omitted) 2 of 6 questions correct (3 omitted) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXX XX XXXXXX XX Student Copy 156 47 Yes 2011 4 Yes If your Selection Index places you among the 55,000 high scorers who qualify for program recognition, you will be notified next September. Sport & Fitness Administration/ Management A02670146P 50 72 34 You scored higher than 55% of juniors. You scored higher than 87% of juniors. You scored higher than 23% of juniors. A02670146P { 30 to 38 { 46 to 54 { 68 to 76 Percentiles Your Educational Plans Grade Average B College Major Computer Engineering Information above is self-reported. Name: STUDENT, IMA B Year: 2008 Grade: 11 School Code: 123456 Optional Code: 00 A02670146P Question 1 A 2 B e 3 A C m 4 C A h 5 B E h 6 D e 7 B m 8 D o e 9 B m 10 E B h 11 D h 12 C m 13 A m 14 B A m 15 A e 16 C m 17 A e 18 E m 19 B m 20 B E m 21 E m 22 D B h 23 E m 24 A m 25 D m 26 D e 27 D e 28 A e 29 C e 30 D E m 31 A B h 32 E h 33 B A h 34 D e 35 A e 36 E A e 37 C m 38 B m 39 B C h 40 C A h 41 B h 42 C E m 43 E m 44 C m 45 D B m 46 A B m 47 C E e 48 E A m Key Correct o Omitted u Unscorable e Easy m Medium h Hard Alg Algebra & Functions Data Data Analysis, Statistics & Probability Geom Geometry & Measurement Num Number & Operations Sentence Completions Sentence Completions SECTION3 Passage-Based Reading Critical Reading 50 Scoring Correct answer = PLUS 1 POINT. Omitted answers = NO POINTS. Wrong answers to multiple-choice questions = MINUS 1/4 POINT. Wrong answers to math questions 29–38 = NO LOST POINTS. Points are totaled, then converted to scores on the 20—80 scale. 80 Mathematics 52 Writing Skills 44 Ask for your test book back so you can see the questions. Scores within these ranges can be considered similar to yours: Your Scores Review Your Answers Improve Your Skills The skills listed are based on your individual performance on the test and represent those that you have the best chance to improve with extra work. Follow the suggestions to improve in each area. 20 8020 8020 800200 100%50% 100%50% 100%50% SAT WritingSAT MathSAT Critical Reading 800200 800200 SECTION1 Correct Answer Your Answer Difficulty Question 1 D e Alg 2 E e Data 3 E e Geom 4 C e Alg 5 B e Geom 6 B e Alg 7 C o e Num 8 A m Geom 9 B m Data 10 D m Alg 11 B o m Geom 12 D m Alg 13 B D m Alg 14 A D h Data 15 E D m Alg 16 E m Num 17 A C h Num 18 E o h Geom 19 D A h Alg 20 D C h Geom 21 B e Num 22 C e Alg 23 A m Geom 24 D m Num 25 B m Geom 26 D e Alg 27 C A m Alg 28 A B m Num Multiple-Choice Multiple-Choice SECTION4 Student-Produced Responses SECTION2 Correct Answer Your Answer Difficulty Content 29 7 m Alg 30 3 o m Num 31 4.5 or 9/2 o m Alg 32 1000 m Data 33 10, 12, 14, or 16 h Alg 34 8/5 or 1.6 o h Geom 35 29 h Data 36 108 50.9 h Num 37 42 4.2 m Alg 38 8 10 h Geom Question Difficulty Content Question 1 A e 2 C E e 3 A m 4 B E m 5 E B h 6 B D e 7 A C m 8 C E h 9 C D m 10 A C h 11 B E h 12 B E m 13 D E m 14 D E m 15 E C e 16 B m 17 D e 18 A B m 19 C E m 20 E m 21 C m 22 B h 23 E m 24 C m 25 D A m 26 A e 27 A B e 28 C A e 29 C A m 30 D m 31 B A h 32 A h 33 D C h 34 D e 35 E A e 36 A D e 37 B m 38 C m 39 C h Improving Sentences Identifying Sentence Errors Improving Paragraphs SECTION5 Correct Answer Your Answer Difficulty You answered correctly 21of 38 math questions and earned 21 points. 9 of 10 easy questions 10 of 18 medium questions 2 of 10 hard questions You omitted 6 question(s). You answered incorrectly 11 question(s) and lost 2 point(s). Ranges Your Answer Correct Answer(s) You answered correctly 29 of 48 critical reading questions and earned 29 points. 11 of 14 easy questions 15 of 23 medium questions 3 of 11 hard questions You omitted 1 question(s). You answered incorrectly 18 question(s) and lost 5 point(s). You answered correctly 16of 39 writing skills questions and earned 16 points. 4 of 11 easy questions 9 of 19 medium questions 3 of 9 hard questions You omitted 0 question(s). You answered incorrectly 23 question(s) and lost 6 point(s). Selection Index 146 Percentile 47 compares your performance with college-bound juniors The Selection Index (S.I.) is the sum of your critical reading, mathematics, and writing skills scores. NMSC uses the S.I. as an initial screen of over 1.5 million students who enter its scholarship programs(see reverse). Entry Requirements Below is information you provided on your answer sheet. Full-time high school student: Yes Year to complete high school and enroll full time in college: 2010 Years to be spent in grades 9—12: 4 U.S. citizenship: Yes National Merit Scholarship Corporation (NMSC) Programs Passage-Based Reading Description: In the com- puter engineering major, students learn to design and develop computer and com- puter-related systems. These systems include software systems, hardware systems, and combined hardware/soft- ware systems. Students take courses in basic sciences, mathematics, and engineer- ing science and design. Associated Skills: Computing, basic sciences, mathematics. Recommended High School Courses: English 4, precollege mathematics 4, biology 1, chemistry 1, physics 1, social studies 3–4, history 2–3, for- eign language 2–4, music .5, visual arts .5, and computer science .5–1. Determining an author’s purpose or perspective How to improve: Authors write for a variety of purposes, such as to inform, to explain, or to convince. When you read, try to determine why the author wrote what he or she wrote. See questions 20, 42, 48. Understanding complex sentences How to improve: Ask your English teacher to recommend books that are a bit more challenging than those you’re used to reading. Practice breaking the sentences down into their component parts to improve your comprehension. Learn how dependent clauses and verb phrases func- tion in sentences. See questions 5, 33. Understanding sentences that deal with scientific ideas How to improve: Read magazine articles about scientific subjects to improve your comfort level in this area. See questions 8, 36. Dealing with probability, basic statistics, charts, and graphs How to improve: Practice solving problems that involve basic probability, basic count- ing, and finding the average (arithmetic mean), median, and mode. Look for charts and graphs in newspapers and magazines, and practice interpreting the data in them. See questions 13, 14, 19. Understanding geometry and coordinate geometry How to improve: Review geometry units in your textbook involving perimeter, area, volume, circumference, angles, lines, slope. Familiarize yourself with the formulas given at the beginning of math sections of the test. See questions 7, 11, 13. Making connections among mathematical topics How to improve: Practice problems that require combining skills acquired in different math courses, such as problems that use combinations of arithmetic, algebra, and geometry. See questions 7, 11, 15. Being precise and clear How to improve: Learn to recognize sentence elements that are ambiguous and confusing. In your writing, choose words carefully and connect them for clear meaning. See questions 4, 6, 8. Recognizing logical connections within sentences and passages How to improve: Use the writing process to help you revise your draft essays. Work with classmates and teachers to clarify meaning in your writing. See questions 8, 28, 29. If your Selection Index places you among the 55,000 high scorers who qualify for program recognition, you will be notified next September. 46 54 48 56 40 48 You scored higher than 55% of juniors. You scored higher than 57% of juniors. You scored higher than 33% of juniors. 460 560 480 580 420 540 VIEW PSAT/NMSQT questions and answer explanations at www.collegeboard.com/quickstart YOUR CODE: A02670146P Check your projected SAT scores online: Did you know you can add a "0" to the end of each PSAT/NMSQT score to find the equivalent SAT scores? See how your performance compares to that of students in your state: Did you know two-thirds of U.S. students begin college in their home state? High school students: Get a personalized SAT study plan at www.collegeboard.com/quickstart YOUR CODE: A02670146P FIND personalized lists of colleges, majors, and careers and use MyRoad at www.collegeboard.com/quickstart YOUR CODE: A02670146P
- 40. Airplane signals