Visualization for public policy presentation from Taubman Talks series at the Watson Institute at Brown University by L. Arthi Krishnaswami

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

4. Policy
Problem
definition
Agenda
setting
AlternativesImplementation
Policy
Evaluation

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

8. Users
• Personas
• Scenarios

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

24. McMartin: Poster
(2006)

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

41. Questions?
Contact me: arthi@ryecatcher.com
or
arthi.krishnaswami@gmail.com
ryecatcher.com
lakrishnaswami.com
@arthikswam