<p>ok i havent taken the new SAT yet but i scored a 1920 on the practice test from the cb book. A 670 math, 710 writing, 540 verbal. Is this what im going to get on the real thing? IF you guys know please let me know.</p>
<p>Its accurate, but since tests have different passages, etc, you might do better on some than others. If you consistently score the same on almost all of them, then that should be your real score, assuming you dont get too nervous on the real thing.</p>
<p>I agree, the big blue book is pretty on-par.</p>
<p>The only difference I saw, in terms of taking it at home and taking the actual, was that the actual I found myself rushing much more than when i'm at home. Since, I was scared of running out of time.</p>
<p>It's not necessarily what you'll get on the real thing--nobody knows for sure what you'll get until you get it. But the Blue Book is written by the same people who write the SAT (it <em>is</em> the real SAT), so it should (theoretically) be pretty much exactly as easy or hard as the real test. Now, of course, when an individual student takes an individual SAT there could be some variation from previous scores--you might get lucky and all the math questions might come really easily, or you might get screwed and your brain could freeze up for ten minutes on a particular essay prompt. But the tests in the blue book could theoretically be given to a huge body of students (like the real SAT is) and generate a score distribution very similar to that of any other SAT, because they are all written and designed by the same people.</p>
<p>In other words, if you took a blue book test under simulated conditions and got a 1920, then gave yourself enough time to recover (but not learn anything new that would affect your score), then took the real SAT, we would expect a score around 1920. But don't let that affect your expectations in either direction--you should still try to do your best every time you take the test, regardless of previous performance! :)</p>
<p>Does CB release a new book every year?</p>
<p>The blue book is pretty good. The only thing is that they don't put commentary on why certain questions are right or wrong, which is why I use PR a lot of study for the SAT's. The blue book fooled me though... the writing scale was so much more forgiving in the book than it is for the curve on the real SATs.</p>
<p>How do you mean, vu?</p>
<p>Yea, there's variance within the person...they say it's +/- 30 points each section, so you could score between an 1830 and a 2010 theoretically, although that's assuming your knowledge doesn't change at all and you don't psych yourself out.</p>
<p>xitammarg, sorry I looked back at the blue book and I was wrong. The ranges become different, it doesn't stay the same. I know what happened... I got it mistaken with the little "SAT Preparation Booklet: 2004-2005" that is the full length practice SAT that collegeboard gives out for free to schools. In that one, let me reiterate by collegeboard also, it says a MC raw score in writing of a 44-49 along with 6's on your essay can get you an 800. It says getting a 46-49 raw with 5's will get you an 800. Even more radical is the one that says a 48-49 raw and 4's will get you an 800. As you can see the table provided in the booklet is completely different from the scoring of the real SAT, where it seemed like you absolutely needed a raw of 80 and an 11 or maybe something like 79 and a 12, but most people I see on collegeconfidential that got 800s got an 80.</p>
<p>The Blue Book is the best available since the CB were the only folks who really knew what was going to be on the test. I found a matrices problem in the PR 11 New SATs! They barely touch on that on the Math Level 2.</p>
<p>But because the problems could not be tested on thousands of students, the scaling is unreliable (notice that they use the same scale for every test). Moreover, you technically are not given a score, you are given a range because they know that a slapped together test is not accurate enough.</p>
<p>I've noticed the most variability in the Writing sections in the Blue Book. They have few hard problems, so the scores tend to skew high.</p>
<p>Gotcha, vu. That's interesting about the booklet--I wonder what explains the discrepancy.</p>
<p>I found it to be very accurate compared towards my March results.</p>
<p>Based on the difficulty of the tests alone, it was very good. The tests from the book that i took were veryyyy similar to the SAT, but the grammar section might have been a tad harder on the real SAT.</p>
<p>I also reviewed from Barrons Math for the New SAT - it's much harder than the real test, but two formulas from that book saved me on two math questions that i was unsure of</p>
<p>Blue Book is too leniant on the MC part of the exam. 1 wrong on the March exam was a 77 but I think this time around they made it harder so hopefully curve will be better.</p>
<p>rmac2188, what 2 formulas for what 2 questions</p>
<p>rmac--is that the Barron's Math Workbook</p>
<p>yeah...</p>
<p>Math workbook for the New SAT</p>
<p>On my test, their was a sequence problem that could be solved pretty easily without the formula, but...using the formula, i did it very quickly and was confident about it being right.</p>
<p>Last term in an arithmetic sequence: An = A1 + (n-1) * d,
where A1 = the first term of the sequence, An = the last term and d = the common difference between consecutive terms.</p>
<p>The other was just a permutation problem that i wouldn't have been sure how to solve without having consulted the book.</p>
<p>The rest of the math was pretty easy</p>
<p>eh. well. I didn't use the blue book this time around, but when I used the 10 reals for my jan one- I did significantly better than what I did on the practice tests.</p>
<p>b
u
m
p</p>
<p>Interesting thread!</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, the curve on the actual SAT writing horrified me. But the tests were pretty accurate.</p>