[quote]The recentering they did in 1995 actually lowered scores. The SAT is supposed to have a mean of 1000 (500/500), with a normal distribution of scores, but over the years it had crept up to something like 1070. The M/V scores were unbalanced, too (560ishM/510ishV). So they redid the score charts to even things out again. I doubt the questions are any easier these days, people mostly do better (on average) because everyone's more familiar with the test.<hr></blockquote>
You speak falsehoods Towel. They did recenter it to 1000 but the national average immediately prior to 1995 was in the low 900s. Ostensibly the purpose was to bring that mean back up to 1000. In a more practical sense the recentering was for purposes of spreading out the vast middle across a broader spectrum, flattening the bell curve to help college admissions offices draw more distinction between those clumped in the center. There might be some scores that went down, I'm not sure but under the recentering the mean average increased about 100 points and in particular scores on the Verbal increased dramatically as it had to be recentered by a greater margin to reach 500 than did the Math portion.
This was before they recentered. I heard that the recentering raised the average score 100 points, so I would have gotten a 1590. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Or something like that...
1420 on the GRE's. 720 math and 700 verbal. Thing is, I ALWAYS got B's in english, so those verbal scores are bizarre. I've always been a good guesser.
As you can see there are only a few possible results which yield lower scores under the recentered formula, Math 710-660, Math 230 and Match 210 all of which result in a 10 point lower score, and Math 220 which leads to a 20 point lower score under the recentered numbers. The math scores in the middle, 400 or so to 600 have point gains of around 30-50 points. The gains are larger for the verbal.
I did overestimate the amount that could be gained by recentering, it appears you can pick up 80 points on the verbal and 50 points on the math as the maximum difference when comparing recentered to prior scores. Although IIRC correctly the mean gain was about 100 points so an awful lot of people are hitting the sweet spots on that chart to pick up those points. Not too surprising considering that pretty much any verbal score will be 70 or 80 points higher under the recentered formula.
As you can see there are only a few possible results which yield lower scores under the recentered formula, Math 710-660, Math 230 and Match 210 all of which result in a 10 point lower score, and Math 220 which leads to a 20 point lower score under the recentered numbers. The math scores in the middle, 400 or so to 600 have point gains of around 30-50 points. The gains are larger for the verbal.
I did overestimate the amount that could be gained by recentering, it appears you can pick up 80 points on the verbal and 50 points on the math as the maximum difference when comparing recentered to prior scores. Although IIRC correctly the mean gain was about 100 points so an awful lot of people are hitting the sweet spots on that chart to pick up those points. Not too surprising considering that pretty much any verbal score will be 70 or 80 points higher under the recentered formula.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, according to that chart, I would have gotten a 1580. Who knew I was that smart? 790 v 790 math. Just goes to show you that those tests don't mean a thing.
I stand corrected....according to the College Board, I'm full of sh1t. What confused me were articles like <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/28/education/28LESS.html?ex=1031540565&ei=1&en=583cc7fd9f988cb8 " target="_blank">this (NYTimes)</a>, which note a steady rise in scores during the 1990s, with a much faster rise in math than verbal. (Note that in the article, all the mean scores quoted are on the recentered scale.) But you're clearly right about mean scores in the early 90s being historically low (and lower in verbal than math), and so recentered up in 1994.
I took my SAT's twice back in 1983. I'm guessing that I had the lowest SAT score ever recorded. I had a combined score on the PSAT of 560. My first attempt at the SAT yielded a combined score of 640 and my second SAT result was a combined 770.
I, incredibly, was admitted to college. The SAT's are a good indicator of how one would perform in college. But, I never gave up. I flunked out of my freshman year. I attended one of the worst schools in the country (a 2 year school) for one year and then I graduated in August of 1987 because I flunked my Senior year and had to go back for summer. But, I graduated!
What is also incredible is that everyone I know (friends and family) are successful. As I write this, I am unemployed (what a shock!) and, if you can believe it, I am 44 and thinking of taking the GRE's to get into Graduate School!!! Maybe, if I get a Masters, it will facilitate my chances of finding a job with a resume, that I, probably, don't have to add, is horrendous!!!! I ask counselors to help me with interviewing with my resume but these trained career counselors leave the telephone conversation thinking that they have never heard about such a disaster in their lives!!!
As others have done, I got into college based on my HS transcript... no SAT, ACT, etc.
I'm not sure my HS transcript even mattered. The ability to actually pay the tuition probably had more to do with easy acceptance than my good grades did. I'm guessing that's still a huge factor these days.
As others have done, I got into college based on my HS transcript... no SAT, ACT, etc.
I'm not sure my HS transcript even mattered. The ability to actually pay the tuition probably had more to do with easy acceptance than my good grades did. I'm guessing that's still a huge factor these days.
But ... still... what is the point of SAT/ACT/etc ??? ... if your HS transcript doesn't reflect your education, then why bother even giving grades in HS??
Comments
You speak falsehoods Towel. They did recenter it to 1000 but the national average immediately prior to 1995 was in the low 900s. Ostensibly the purpose was to bring that mean back up to 1000. In a more practical sense the recentering was for purposes of spreading out the vast middle across a broader spectrum, flattening the bell curve to help college admissions offices draw more distinction between those clumped in the center. There might be some scores that went down, I'm not sure but under the recentering the mean average increased about 100 points and in particular scores on the Verbal increased dramatically as it had to be recentered by a greater margin to reach 500 than did the Math portion.
This was before they recentered. I heard that the recentering raised the average score 100 points, so I would have gotten a 1590. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Or something like that...
1420 on the GRE's. 720 math and 700 verbal. Thing is, I ALWAYS got B's in english, so those verbal scores are bizarre. I've always been a good guesser.
<a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/sat/cbsenior/equiv/rt019019.html"; target="_blank">http://www.collegeboard.com/sat/cbsenior/equiv/rt019019.html</a>;
As you can see there are only a few possible results which yield lower scores under the recentered formula, Math 710-660, Math 230 and Match 210 all of which result in a 10 point lower score, and Math 220 which leads to a 20 point lower score under the recentered numbers. The math scores in the middle, 400 or so to 600 have point gains of around 30-50 points. The gains are larger for the verbal.
I did overestimate the amount that could be gained by recentering, it appears you can pick up 80 points on the verbal and 50 points on the math as the maximum difference when comparing recentered to prior scores. Although IIRC correctly the mean gain was about 100 points so an awful lot of people are hitting the sweet spots on that chart to pick up those points. Not too surprising considering that pretty much any verbal score will be 70 or 80 points higher under the recentered formula.
<strong>Here is the conversion chart:
<a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/sat/cbsenior/equiv/rt019019.html"; target="_blank">http://www.collegeboard.com/sat/cbsenior/equiv/rt019019.html</a>;
As you can see there are only a few possible results which yield lower scores under the recentered formula, Math 710-660, Math 230 and Match 210 all of which result in a 10 point lower score, and Math 220 which leads to a 20 point lower score under the recentered numbers. The math scores in the middle, 400 or so to 600 have point gains of around 30-50 points. The gains are larger for the verbal.
I did overestimate the amount that could be gained by recentering, it appears you can pick up 80 points on the verbal and 50 points on the math as the maximum difference when comparing recentered to prior scores. Although IIRC correctly the mean gain was about 100 points so an awful lot of people are hitting the sweet spots on that chart to pick up those points. Not too surprising considering that pretty much any verbal score will be 70 or 80 points higher under the recentered formula.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, according to that chart, I would have gotten a 1580. Who knew I was that smart?
I stand corrected....according to the College Board, I'm full of sh1t. What confused me were articles like <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/28/education/28LESS.html?ex=1031540565&ei=1&en=583cc7fd9f988cb8 " target="_blank">this (NYTimes)</a>, which note a steady rise in scores during the 1990s, with a much faster rise in math than verbal. (Note that in the article, all the mean scores quoted are on the recentered scale.) But you're clearly right about mean scores in the early 90s being historically low (and lower in verbal than math), and so recentered up in 1994.
I, incredibly, was admitted to college. The SAT's are a good indicator of how one would perform in college. But, I never gave up. I flunked out of my freshman year. I attended one of the worst schools in the country (a 2 year school) for one year and then I graduated in August of 1987 because I flunked my Senior year and had to go back for summer. But, I graduated!
What is also incredible is that everyone I know (friends and family) are successful. As I write this, I am unemployed (what a shock!) and, if you can believe it, I am 44 and thinking of taking the GRE's to get into Graduate School!!! Maybe, if I get a Masters, it will facilitate my chances of finding a job with a resume, that I, probably, don't have to add, is horrendous!!!! I ask counselors to help me with interviewing with my resume but these trained career counselors leave the telephone conversation thinking that they have never heard about such a disaster in their lives!!!
As others have done, I got into college based on my HS transcript... no SAT, ACT, etc.
I'm not sure my HS transcript even mattered. The ability to actually pay the tuition probably had more to do with easy acceptance than my good grades did. I'm guessing that's still a huge factor these days.
So what IS the point of these tests??
As others have done, I got into college based on my HS transcript... no SAT, ACT, etc.
I'm not sure my HS transcript even mattered. The ability to actually pay the tuition probably had more to do with easy acceptance than my good grades did. I'm guessing that's still a huge factor these days.
Let me guess... USC?
Let me guess... USC?
only off by a couple thousand miles
How about a public university in ND?
But ... still... what is the point of SAT/ACT/etc ??? ... if your HS transcript doesn't reflect your education, then why bother even giving grades in HS??