Just as an example, suppose we take a New SAT score of R/W 520 M 700 = 1220
According to the May 9th concordance tables, New SAT 1220 = Old SAT 1700
But the tables also say
new SAT Math 700 = old SAT Math 670 and
new SAT Reading/Writing 520 = Old SAT Writing + Critical Reading 930.
Last time I checked, 930+670=1600 not 1700. So there is a 100 point discrepancy. How can the total score be equivalent to 1700 when the individual scores are equivalent to 1600?
Anybody solved this one?
Sure, its easy. The new management has decided quality control is not necessary, so consider this just one more unprecedented mistake.
percentiles don’t match either
also, either the practice test conversion tables aren’t accurate or their scoring is worse than i think
What is mind-boggling is that universities are most likely going to dump numbers into their batch converter and take whatever number it spits out and probably remain clueless to all of the issues going on. At a recent college visit I asked whether or not they were going to look at the R+M or the ERW+ M and the AO looked at me like I was nuts. THe response was that they weren’t going to use the essay. Well, that wasn’t my question!
@Plotinus
It’s a function of the discrepant scores you used in the example (700 much higher than 520) and the fact that R and W have twice the weight on the old test as they do on the new. More generally, equipercentile concordances don’t mean that all points will add up, they simply represent the scores achieved by students at the same percentile.
Easiest to show with an example of similar scores that add up to the same 1220 ERW+M that you used: 610 ERW and 610 M. These are concordant with 1100 and 590 for a total old SAT score of 1690. So very similar to the 1700 that is concordant with a 1220.
Now take an example that is discordant in the opposite direction from your example – 700 ERW and 520M. These are concordant with 1370 and 490 or 1860!
One last way of looking at it. The 520 ERW you picked would translate to a 1040 CR+W if there were no inflation/no concordance. A 610 ERW would be 1220 CR+W. A 700 ERW would be CR+W of 1400 (again, I’m ignoring the concordance on purpose just to illustrate the double impact of ERW). For each 90 point increase in ERW we’d expect 180 points on the old SAT’s CR+W score.
This points out how different the results can be if colleges choose to use CR+M+W scores, CR+M scores, or translate individual scores. That’s before even addressing potential inadequacies in the concordance. But the 1600/1700 difference you describe is not out of line.
@Mom2aphysicsgeek I don’t understand your question either. Clue me in? (One kid took the old SAT, one takes the new one this fall.)
@Aroundhere The new SAT incorporates English and writing questions in with the reading. They provide CR and EW subscores. The main reported scores are M+ ERW but the subscores can be broken down to provide a CR + EW+ M conversion.
I did not mean to imply that you picked the numbers out of a hat. My examples were to show how things change depending on the score mix. The concordance numbers are coherent, but concordance cannot compensate for the fact that the scoring structure of the test has changed (2 reading and writing scores to 1). Ultimately a decision needs to be made about how scores will be translated at a particular school. You are correct that the method used will lead to different results.
The student’s relative weakness in ELA would have been more pronounced on the old SAT CR+M+W (2400) score than it is on the new SAT’s EBRW+M score (1600) because that weakness would have been amplified. A total to total concordance benefits the student. A section to section concordance is less favorable for the student. The concordances are not wrong, but they will not produce the same results for all combinations of scores and methods. This is why there need to be as many concordance tables as there are. Colleges do not have a single approach to concordance, so we can’t say which method is “right” and how the student’s scores will be viewed.
@Plotinus - I expect that they’ll convert and attend to subscores, just as they always had. Students talk about combined scores, but it’s always been the subscores that have mattered.
On what rational basis can admissions officers decide whether to use the total score concordance or the subscore concordance?
I am sorry, but this answer seems to me a version of the doctrine of the double truth. Siger de Brabant’s interpretation of Averroism was condemned as heretical in 1277.
Is this what admissions officers have told you? @TestRekt seems to think that some universities will concord using total scores and some using subscores.
And if @marvin100 is right, should not CB have just given the subscore concordances and left out the total score concordances?
With the ACT/old SAT concordances, there were no subscore to subscore concordances given for Reading and Math, so we did not get a double truth.
I agree @Plotinus. The entire converting scores issue is completely confusing. And which subscores do you convert? Are school’s going to separate out the EW questions that are now an integrated part of CB’s 50/50 M + language score? The reading test is not the old CR reading test, so is a direct M+Ronly score even equivalent to an old M-CR score?
Are schools going to convert to a 4 digit SAT score and then convert that to an ACT equivalent? (Bc the concordance tables don’t do that.)
Bumping this because I’m curious about the above question. Will schools that only wanted CR+M before only look at the math and reading subscores or will they look at the EBRW(reading and writing) together now?
Ok, here is my naive question. Why do colleges have to compare new SAT scores to old SAT scores? Are they not just going to look at the distribution of scores of applied students? For example if the top 25% of applicants have scores between X and Y SAT what does it matters what those numbers used to be in he old SATs?
One reason colleges will compare new and old SAT scores is that this year some applicants will submit only old SAT scores and some will submit only new SAT scores. Quite a few members of the class of 2017 moved up their standardized preparation to take the old SAT and will submit only those scores.
It is quite possible that this fall one applicant will submit old SAT CR 480 M 670 W 450 and another new SAT R/W 520 M 700. Assuming the rest of the their applications are equal, the admissions office will have to decide whether these new SAT scores are equal to the old SAT scores or 100 points higher (depending upon which horn of the double-truth concordance tables it uses).
I am not sure what the answer is to this question, but my best guess is that schools that previously did not consider Writing will now look at the R/W together. This is because the new SAT writing, like the ACT English, has a good deal of reading comprehension in it. I assume the CB was motivated to put the two together in part to discourage colleges from discarding writing scores.
This is a really burning question for students using SAT scores to qualify for NCAA (not the typical CC student). The old eligibility requirements completely ignored SAT writing scores. In fact, I used to tell these students to put their heads down on their hands during the writing sections. I suspect they won’t be able to do that anymore.
I guess the assumption here is both college admission and College Board follow “exact science”. College admission is more of an “art” and College Board is just a pretender (pretends to follow “exact science” ).
It is all about trying one’s best and taking chances.