<p>ahh those science scores are making me nervous, I probably got like an 18 or something else horriffic :p</p>
<p>ahhh... celebrian good luck on ur scores ;)...</p>
<p>it is taking my very last effort not to look at my scores now. I'm attempting this patience deal :)</p>
<p>It's not taking me any effort at all. $8? Forget about it :)</p>
<p>yay 32</p>
<p>31 english 32 math 35 reading 28 science</p>
<p>29 comp. 27-Eng 30-Math 35-Reading 24-Science.</p>
<p>Does anybody know where a new ACT to SAT conversion table is? I only have an old one.</p>
<p>I have a 33 ACT and 760V 640M old SAT do I need to take the new SAT? Interested in ND (legacy) No Ivies. Eagle Scout. 3.9GPA</p>
<p>gigante, all we've found is the SAT-ACT score comparisons you access from CB site itself. The data appears to be collected from 94-96, but it appears to be the Table in use by most. It appears skewed in favor of SAT takers in that a 99th percentile ACT (32) converts to a 97th percentile SAT (1420) instead of a 99th percentile SAT (1480). If you google it, it (the CB table) will match with most tables in use. The 800lb. gorilla makes the rules.</p>
<p>yeah, any idea when a new one might be realeased, and when a non-biased one will be created?</p>
<p>Yes, Gigante. I know exactly when it will change for the better. It will change the year after my daughter is safely ensconced in her safety school having been waitlisted by every match school to which she applied .</p>
<p>sounds like a plan. I figure they will need to update that list soon since the top is 2400 now.</p>
<p>Actually, this pdf says
"Although the new SAT will have significant changes that will more closely align the test with current
instructional practices, the new SAT field trial research has conclusively demonstrated that scores on the
new critical reading section will be comparable to scores on the current verbal section, and scores on the
new math section will be comparable to scores on the current math section. Therefore, current concordance
tables can still be used to compare new SAT and ACT scores."</p>
<p>But I am looking for one that gives an SAT equivalent out of 2400.</p>
<p>I got a 29, which is equal to a 1300.
And I got a 610CR and a 690M, so a 1300 with those two.
But then my writing was only a 540, so I think a 1300 old SAT would be better than a 1840 new.</p>
<p>I got a 30 composite. Last time I took it I got a 31, so that kind of sucks I was hoping to go up not down! Does anyone have any advice if I should take it again or be happy with my 31? I am going to apply to schools like Notre Dame, and Boston College. Is a 31 a good enough score or should I try one more time in June?</p>
<p>Gigante - try this Kaplan site <a href="http://phs.prs.k12.nj.us/Guidance/SAT_ACT_Comparison.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://phs.prs.k12.nj.us/Guidance/SAT_ACT_Comparison.pdf</a></p>
<p>Thanks, so my ACT is like 80pts higher than my SAT, thank you ann!</p>
<p>I have the pr one, but i've been told its far off</p>
<p>My pr guide says a 32 is a 1410-1450 old sat, or a 2130 new SAT.</p>
<p>gahhhh 34 comp.... i got a 35 before they came out wif stupid essay...</p>
<p>this ****es me off the most tho:
36 reading
35 sci
33 for BOTh math and writing >_<</p>
<p>the last time i got a 34 and 35 for math and writing... <em>sigh</em></p>
<p>That table seems a little off. Plus, it doesn't take into account the Writing scores will be significantly de-emphasized for the class of 2006. Basically, a combined 1500 CR and M with a 700 W is a lot better than a combined 1400 CR and M with a 800 W. They are the same composite, but one is significantly better in the admissions process.</p>
<p>Here's a better table:</p>
<p>2400 1600 36
2300 1550 35
2200 1500 34
2120 1450 33
2070 1400 32
2020 1350 31
1970 1300 30</p>
<p>and so on. A better indication of your score what just be to take the combined CR and M. As long as your writing is around 700 and not overly low, the CR and M will matter the most.</p>
<p>gexxman: Why does website today say "not available, try again next week" for d's scores? Are the scores released in batches?
Thanks</p>