<p>^thanks ucb, </p>
<p>So it seems that the top 28% does as well as the top 12% in the 80s on the SAT II Math II.</p>
<p>I think it’s a variety of factors. My state just came up in the top 10 for high SAT scores, but only 4% of the kids take the SAT (because it is an ACT state)…that is a somewhat self selecting group of kids. If some states are using the SAT for ALL juniors (like some states use the ACT for all juniors) that has a tendency to depress the total scores.</p>
<p>Thanks bluebayou, can you provide a link? </p>
<p>Considering that 673 is the equivalent of 643 (on today’s scale) and the mean is 695(?) now, this would suggest a significant increase (~50 points) on a 200-800 scale in mathematics. However, this fact doesn’t seem to get much attention. The media seems to be chronically focused on talking about some piddly 15 point drop in the SAT score (on a 600-2400 scale) and making people think that the kids of today are less smarter (or perhaps less hard working) than kids of yesterday. Perhaps the real story is that kids are more focused on doing well in math than English?</p>
<p>or the real story is that English teaching has declined (or at least those skills reading mind-numbing passages that are needed to do well on the SAT)… :)</p>
<p>Just call me cynical… but the College Board CEO is trumpeting this finding as “…a call to action” in another article I read.</p>
<p>Who makes more money if more students take the PSAT (as they propose they should)? College Board! Who makes more money if more blue prep books are sold? The College Board! Technically they are a non-profit, but 19 of their executives make over $300,000 a year. That seems excessive to me, especially after forking over so much for SAT tests, subject tests, score choice, AP testing, and CSS Profile fees last year for D2’s application process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently, this is what everyone is concerned about. However, the decline seems small compared to these huge gains in math scores. So, why focus on a small decline and ignore this huge gain? It could be that people generally think that getting good paying jobs is easier with strong math skills (by becoming an engineer or scientist) than with strong English writing skills (becoming a journalist or lawyer). I am just wondering why are we not also celebrating the fact that math teaching has improved so significantly?</p>
<p>Bad news sells better than good news.</p>
<p>Also, even if something improves, it may not necessarily be at the desired level after the improvement. (Consider if your kid brought home F grades and improved them to D grades the next semester.)</p>
<p>A long history of average SAT scores is below:</p>
<p>1953 – 495M / 476V
1963 – 502M / 478V
1973 – 481M / 445V
1983 – 468M / 425V
1993 – 478M / 424V
2003 – 489M / 427V = 519M / 507V after recentering
2013 – 484M / 416V = 514M / 496V after recentering</p>
<p>The biggest drops for both section occurred between in 1963 and 1983, likely due to a larger portion of students taking the test. However, the math side recovered most of the losses in the 1983 to 2003 period, while the verbal did not. I’m uncertain about the reasons. Demographics changes and policy changes may have contributed (A Nation At Risk and new National Council of Teachers of Mathematics curriculum/teaching/testing changes).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>SAT-M scores have been flat for the last xx years, i.e., no change.</p>
<p>I had thought that <em>fewer</em> students were taking the SAT (and more taking the ACT) and that’s part of the concern.</p>
<p>I don’t particularly understand why the title of the article the OP linked to is “SAT scores continue to slip” when this year they were the same as last year.</p>
<p>More interesting to me is that the number of seniors taking the SAT actually declined this year compared to 2012; I’m not sure when that last happened, but it would have been a quite a while ago. I believe that this trend versus the ACT’s continued surge is the prime motivation behind the upcoming changes to the SAT.</p>
<p>Here are the Math II Achievement test percentile ranks for the senior class of 1981:</p>
<p>800 94%
750 83%
700 64%
650 43%
600 23%
550 11%
500 6%
450 3%
400 1%
…</p>
<p>Wow thanks fignewton, so my kid’s 750 on today’s Math II (old 780) would have placed him somewhere between the top 6% and top 16% in the country in 1981. However, he only makes a 64 percentile rank in 2013. </p>
<p>So, any idea how many took the test in 1981? I could then figure out approximately how many would have done better than him back then. For now all we know is that about 50,000 kids out of the 140,000 that took this test this year did better than him.</p>
<p><a href=“http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Subject-Tests-Percentile-Ranks-2013.pdf[/url]”>http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Subject-Tests-Percentile-Ranks-2013.pdf</a></p>
<p>be careful with CB reports…this one shows 176,000 students took M2:</p>
<p><a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbs2011_total_group_report.pdf[/url]”>http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbs2011_total_group_report.pdf</a></p>
<p>bluebayou, Sure, different years have different numbers, but can we agree that about 45k to 50k score 750 or above these days and the mean is 677 (old 707)? So the question is how many scored 780 or higher in 1981? My guess is, proportionately a lot fewer.</p>
<p><a href=“http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/TotalGroup-2012.pdf[/url]”>http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/TotalGroup-2012.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is also a downturn in the number of high school graduates.</p>
<p>[Table</a> 12. Actual and projected numbers for high school graduates, by control of school: School years 1996–97 through 2021–22](<a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2021/tables/table_12.asp]Table”>http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2021/tables/table_12.asp)</p>
<p>The best to assess the test is to take it yourself.<br>
It is laughable to say it in the least negative way. If somebody think that this test shows how well kids are prepared for college, then it explains really well why so many will fall out of pre-med, engineering and many other tracks and settle to less challenging ones. The test is greatly misleading and sends kids to colleges with incorrect expectations…and then the sad part, very very sad, when they discover (sometime the best of them) that nope, not at all they are prepared for what they have dreamt about their entire life.</p>
<p>My scores did the same thing, have you thought of applying to a test optional school? There are some amazing universities that offer test optional. For example…Wake Forest University in NC. It is has one of the top undergraduate programs in the south.</p>