I found this chart from Auburn University helpful in trying to understand the new SAT score. http://auburn.edu/scholarship/testscores.html
The Auburn table appears to be based on the CB concordance.
So my 1440 is on the highest end of the 31 scale according to Auburn. Could this be interpreted as leaning towards more a 32. Would you say a 1440 is more equal to a 31 or 32? @Mamelot @MomofThree95
It’s 31. Had you scored 10 points higher you know you’d be feeling great at 32, rather than asking CC whether you are actually leaning back towards a 31 
@Mamelot Yeah but a 10 point difference when it’s on the high end of the 31 scale shouldn’t put me on the same equivalency as a 1400-1410, right? Aren’t I considered to be more in line with a 32 than 31?
@Mamelot You know what, I think I’m overthinking it. I’m happy and confident with my score, and it’s higher than my original goal of 1440. I’ll send it with confidence and work on other parts of my application
Original goal of 1400*
@mclaughlin here’s an over-explanation to assist your over-thinking:
If you had scored the 10 extra points and come in at a 1450 (new), your concorded “old” score would have been 1400. 1400 - 1430 is the appropriate (old) SAT range for a 32 (actually: 31.50 - 32.25. ACT rounds at the .5).
As it is, you scored 1440 which concords to an “old” 1390. 1360-1390 is the appropriate (old) SAT range for a 31 (actually 30.50 - 31.25).
(These conversions, btw, are based on the old ACT/SAT conversion tables that the two organizations put together once upon a time. They are the same conversions that CB is using now in order to concord it’s new SAT to ACT.)
So your 1440 is on the high end of 31 (probably around 31.25). And a 1450 would have been on the low end of 32 (probably around 31.50). Composite scores are always rounded so they are, respectively, 31 and 32. Keep in mind, however, that these conversions really provide general benchmarks more than anything else. Much more weight will be given to your actual SAT than to some estimated “ACT-equivalent”. In the absence of a real submitted ACT, most comparisons to that test will need to be pretty broad.
The problem with that Auburn table (and the issue that will plague some of this year’s applicants IMO), is that in order to determine your ‘Old SAT 1600 equiv’ (that’s M+CR) from your new SAT score, you need the two subsection scores for the R&W, and there is no way for the info in that table to account for that.
Example: New SAT 1430, (M730, RW700) but with higher R (38) than W (32).
Concords to an Old Sat Math700, CR720, which is a 1420 on the Old M+CR format.
The Auburn table shows a New 1430, concording to ~1375 on the Old 1600 scale.
So, 1420 vs 1375 - not accurate for this test score scenario. I think those tables assume basically equal R & W subscores, which, if you really want to concord to the old M+CR, is not fair to all test-takers.
@WhataProcess - the Auburn table is just based on the College Board’s concordance table (total 1600). I don’t think Auburn is making any separate assumptions about subscores.
If you sum up all the old subscores you get very different answers even on a 2400-basis. (Total-to-total is significantly higher than concording the subsections and adding those up).
I agree that this is due to the large swing in the R and W subscores. My own kid’s subscores are more consistent and while there might be a 10-20 point difference depending on how you concord, there isn’t the large gap you are showing. So clearly the integrity of the concordance really depends on how consistent the overall scores are with one another. Good for the “average” or typical kid, not so good for others. Perhaps this is why CB’s very specific instructions on how to concord don’t exactly include the option to sum up the subscores!