<p>I agree. I suggested back in post #194 that a 141 is equivalent to a 1600.</p>
<p>The concordance table with SAT and ACT sum of scores is in the paper linked to by curmudgeon last night:</p>
<p>It does show a 141 as equivalent to a 1600</p>
<p>I am missing the mathematics chromosome. How did I get myself into this discussion?</p>
<p>Thanks, I got curmudgeon's link now--and good find, too.</p>
<p>The problem I have with that concordance table is that it's OLD.</p>
<p>OK guys, how are you getting this 140 number? There are five numbers in the ACT scores, right? If each is in the 30s, even I, Miss Math-Challenged California and in the running for Miss Math-Challenged USA, understand that we are in the world of 150...</p>
<p>Don't tell me. Only four scores are considered? In Curm's article it says English. At a guess, they use English and English Reading and not English Writing?</p>
<p>Alu: Correct. The Writing portion of the ACT (the 5th number) is NOT included in the composite. The total points one can earn are 144: 36 x 4 (English, Reading, Math, Science). If you take the optional Writing portion, you get a separate score for that, but it's not configured into the composite.</p>
<p>Haha! Maybe I should start with 2nd grade math now, at 51. Let's see, that puts me in AP Calc BC at the age of 61? A heckuva goal.</p>
<p>Thanks curm and yayverily. Well, that concordance table provides a pat solution to the problem. And if all ACT scorers 141-144 are automatically included, that also explains the explosion in numbers of candidates.</p>
<p>Alu: I could study math from here to eternity and NEVER get to BC Calc! :eek:</p>
<p>I don't think switched concordances. I just think they've screwed it up till now and somebody caught it. ;) Are they going to go back and redo it for prior years? Highly unlikely. I wonder how many ACT kids got left out?</p>
<p>Can someone please explain to me what the Pres people did to overlook ACT test takers? This thread just lost me way back but it sounds juicy.</p>
<p>Simple version, cobbled together by the great minds of CC:</p>
<p>In the past, only 1600s and perfect 36s (144 points) have been included in the PS candidate pool in states with a surfeit of high scorers. It was an arbitrary way to keep the numbers from exploding. Someone protested this year about the failure to include all 36 scorers (142s and 143s in addition to 144s) Consulting this concordance table, <a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/research...en_s_10502.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegeboard.com/research...en_s_10502.pdf</a>, the PS folks discovered that 141-144 on the ACT is equivalent to a 1600 CR plus Math on the SAT I. So they added to the candidate pool all kids who scored 141-143 on the ACT. </p>
<p>Whether this is the real story, who knows? But it makes sense.</p>
<p>mammall, our speculation centers around the selection process . They state they sort out the highest scoring 30 males and 30 females
[quote]
The U.S. Department of Education then looks at test records for the top 30 males and top 30 females in each of the states/jurisdictions.
[/quote]
How do they do that sort, if there is an initial sort? Then
[quote]
For each examinee, the SAT score is converted to the ACT Sum of Scores, according to a concordance table (see the concordance table I linked where 141=1600). Each individual examinee's highest test score (in a single test administration ) is identified and duplicates and/or lower scores are dropped.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then
[quote]
The combined file of scores from the top male examinees and top female examinees are then ranked from high to low in each state.
[/quote]
[quote]
The scores associated with the top 20 male examinees and top 20 female examinees are used to identify the candidates in each state. When ties occur in the cut off score, more than 20 persons of that gender are selected in that state.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is my (our?) speculation that they weren't following their own rules and were caught by some ACT kid or parent with a lot of time.;). My (our?) personal guess is they were only letting 144 ACT kids take part when in fact all 36 kids in most states (144,143,142), and some 35 kids (the ones with 141) should have been included all along. That's the explosion in numbers. They weren't going to dis-invite the kids already notified who (maybe) shouldn't have been. </p>
<p>Some large states have only 6,7,8 36 ACT's in a year.Texas 6-8, NY 6, etc. </p>
<p>I bet many states have zero "perfect 144's".
It may be just the 141 kids accounting for the bump. I have yet to find a listing of how many 141's, 142's, etc by state or nationally in a given year. </p>
<p>To me (us?), one of those two is likely what happened. 141's were getting crapped on or 141's 142's and 143's were getting crapped on.</p>
<p>Jeez, wjb. I should have waited. That took me forever. ;)</p>
<p>Good job.</p>
<p>Sorry to post and run, I had to leave for younger S's concert.</p>
<p>Okay, thanks all. I think I understand now. Wow this is getting tricky. Next thing you know they'll decide that not all 1600s are the same since different versions and sittings are curved differently. I can see it now...my 1600 is more pure than yours...I didn't miss any and you were allowed to miss one!</p>
<p>I do feel bad for the prior year ACT scorers. It does look like several equally qualified candidates were left off.</p>
<p>Thanks, curm. But 'twas you who found the smoking gun! ;)</p>
<p>3Ks: Yes, it looks like top ACT scorers have gotten the short end of the stick on PS candidacy over the years. But at least no one missed out on scholarship money, since none is attached to PS. And I don't think PS candidacy enhances anyone's college applications, since it's based strictly on scores that the colleges already have.</p>
<p>I'm not very familiar with the ACT, but if anyone wants to get an idea of how many scored at a particular composite level in their state, those figures are available here for last year's senior class: <a href="http://www.act.org/news/data/07/statemenu.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.act.org/news/data/07/statemenu.html</a>
For example, last year Texas had 8 kids with a 36 and 116 with a composite score of 35. That's from page 12 of the state report. This probably doesn't shed any light on Scholargate ;), but may be of interest to some.
Editing to add there are also state reports for the SAT here: <a href="http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/cb-seniors-2007%5B/url%5D">http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/cb-seniors-2007</a></p>
<p>And 8's a big year for us. ;)</p>
<p>Does this mean that S was actually on the first list from his 1560 and not for his 36 (143) in Florida?</p>
<p>Not necessarily. This whole Scholargate thing (very clever, 2blue!) only comes into play in states with many top scorers. It's possible that in Florida, after they skimmed off all the 1600s and 144s, the PS people still needed more kids to add up to the magic number of 40, so they added in the 143s. In my state, they had enough 1600s and 144s so that no one with less than 144 made the initial cut.</p>
<p>But again, who knows? For all we know, they preferred 1560 to 143.</p>