<p>Most colleges want to see SAT scores after the Sophomore year.</p>
<p>Let me try this here…</p>
<p>It’s time to debunk myths and explain a few things…</p>
<p>A 1600 (M+CR) now is not the same as a 1600 (M+CR) prior to 1995. </p>
<p>A 800M/800CR happens between 58 and 62 times more often now than it did after recentering (in 1995) A score of 800 on Critical Reading (then known as Verbal) was much rarer than an 800 on Math.</p>
<p>With respect to the Verbal test, far fewer people were scoring above 700 (in fact, a little more than 1% of the testers were getting =/>690). About 4 times fewer than what “should” be.</p>
<p>With respect to the Math test, the data at the subtop (760 to 700) was actually slightly crowded. In other words, slightly more people were statistically scoring in that area than “should”. What is “should” you ask? </p>
<p>Basic statistics lesson/history lesson.</p>
<p>The SAT started in the 1920s. They set the average score at 500 with a standard deviation of 100 and range of 200 to 800. They set that average each year at 500, so an individual who took the test in 1933, for instance, could not compare himself (the student who took the SAT back then was most likely male) to an individual who took in it in say 1935. In 1941, they stopped this. They kept the reference group for Verbal in 1941 (for Math it was 1942), and compared everyone back to that group. So, anyone who took the SAT between 1941 (1942 for Math) and March, 1995 could compare him or herself to one another. This is why I danced with glee when I beat my MIT, educated father on the Math (me = 800, 1990; he = 734, 1962). His Verbal of 751 was more than 100 points ahead of mine, though! In the early 1970s, I believe, they began rounding to the “0” so after that, it was not possible to get a 617 or a 392. A 617 would convert to a 620, a 392 to 390.</p>
<p>The SAT distribution is what is considered a normal distribution. In a “normal distribution” (bell curve), 84% of the cases, in this case sat scores, “should” be below 600. By the late 80s and early 90s, this was the case in Math, the percentile at 600 was around that - my brother got that score, if I remember correctly it was 85th percentile. Why do I remember this? 'Cause he got 85th percentile on Verbal (score of 550) and was ranked 85th percentile the class (our school system back then ranked the first 10 and percentile ranked everyone else). For the Verbal test, the percentile at 600 was 93. </p>
<p>Contrary to popular belief, they did not simply add points to the test. First, they redesigned he tests. They took the RAW scores from the tests of people who took the SAT in 1990 and converted them into scores on the 200 to 800 scale. Unknown to many, was the fact that because the average score on Verbal had drifted down so far from the midpoint, rarely did a perfect raw score scale to 800. The verbal test was rarely scaled out above 760! However, would it make sense to award a student only a 760 for getting every question correct? So, what they did was artificially set the top (perfect) score to 800, always, and sort of, adjust for a curve until they could bring the numbers in alignment. For this reason, at the top of Verbal scale, differences of as many as 50 or 60 points were absolutely meaningless, because they could represent as few as 3 questions. This is also why there were more 800s than 790s and more 780s than 770s on the SATV in the 80s and early 90s.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the minimum score of 200, was assigned, but technically not the minimum possible score. During recentering, raw scores that converted to scores lower than 200, were not forced to 200, but allowed to go where they were meant. So, for instance, on one verbal test, I am looking at it right now, a raw score of 5 was the highest raw score where a 200 was possible. as many know, the raw score is the sum of the number of correct answers minus a portion (¼ for all of verbal questions) of the number of incorrect questions answered, omitted questions are excluded. The SAT verbal had 85 questions back then, if someone answers every question incorrectly, a raw score of -21.25 is technically possible. A raw score between 5 and -21.25 was reported as a 200. The raw scores, though actually converted to something and a 0 raw score, for instance on this test, might technically be a 160!</p>
<p>On a side note, consider peeking at this site ----->[SAT</a> : Getting the lowest score possible](<a href=“http://www.colinfahey.com/sat/sat.html]SAT”>http://www.colinfahey.com/sat/sat.html). This is a man who, after getting his masters degree, thought it might be cool to attempt to take the SAT and answer each and every question wrong in an attempt to get the lowest raw score possible. Sure, he did get a 200 on all three sections, but he accidentally answered two questions right!</p>
<p>Feel free to ask any questions that come to mind…</p>
<p>It’s time to debunk myths and explain a few things…</p>
<p>A 1600 (M+CR) now is not the same as a 1600 (M+CR) prior to 1995. </p>
<p>A 800M/800CR happens between 58 and 62 times more often now than it did after recentering (in 1995) A score of 800 on Critical Reading (then known as Verbal) was much rarer than an 800 on Math.</p>
<p>With respect to the Verbal test, far fewer people were scoring above 700 (in fact, a little more than 1% of the testers were getting =/>690). About 4 times fewer than what “should” be.</p>
<p>With respect to the Math test, the data at the subtop (760 to 700) was actually slightly crowded. In other words, slightly more people were statistically scoring in that area than “should”. What is “should” you ask? </p>
<p>Basic statistics lesson/history lesson.</p>
<p>The SAT started in the 1920s. They set the average score at 500 with a standard deviation of 100 and range of 200 to 800. They set that average each year at 500, so an individual who took the test in 1933, for instance, could not compare himself (the student who took the SAT back then was most likely male) to an individual who took in it in say 1935. In 1941, they stopped this. They kept the reference group for Verbal in 1941 (for Math it was 1942), and compared everyone back to that group. So, anyone who took the SAT between 1941 (1942 for Math) and March, 1995 could compare him or herself to one another. This is why I danced with glee when I beat my MIT, educated father on the Math (me = 800, 1990; he = 734, 1962). His Verbal of 751 was more than 100 points ahead of mine, though! In the early 1970s, I believe, they began rounding to the “0” so after that, it was not possible to get a 617 or a 392. A 617 would convert to a 620, a 392 to 390.</p>
<p>The SAT distribution is what is considered a normal distribution. In a “normal distribution” (bell curve), 84% of the cases, in this case sat scores, “should” be below 600. By the late 80s and early 90s, this was the case in Math, the percentile at 600 was around that - my brother got that score, if I remember correctly it was 85th percentile. Why do I remember this? 'Cause he got 85th percentile on Verbal (score of 550) and was ranked 85th percentile the class (our school system back then ranked the first 10 and percentile ranked everyone else). For the Verbal test, the percentile at 600 was 93. </p>
<p>Contrary to popular belief, they did not simply add points to the test. First, they redesigned he tests. They took the RAW scores from the tests of people who took the SAT in 1990 and converted them into scores on the 200 to 800 scale. Unknown to many, was the fact that because the average score on Verbal had drifted down so far from the midpoint, rarely did a perfect raw score scale to 800. The verbal test was rarely scaled out above 760! However, would it make sense to award a student only a 760 for getting every question correct? So, what they did was artificially set the top (perfect) score to 800, always, and sort of, adjust for a curve until they could bring the numbers in alignment. For this reason, at the top of Verbal scale, differences of as many as 50 or 60 points were absolutely meaningless, because they could represent as few as 3 questions. This is also why there were more 800s than 790s and more 780s than 770s on the SATV in the 80s and early 90s.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the minimum score of 200, was assigned, but technically not the minimum possible score. During recentering, raw scores that converted to scores lower than 200, were not forced to 200, but allowed to go where they were meant. So, for instance, on one verbal test, I am looking at it right now, a raw score of 5 was the highest raw score where a 200 was possible. as many know, the raw score is the sum of the number of correct answers minus a portion (¼ for all of verbal questions) of the number of incorrect questions answered, omitted questions are excluded. The SAT verbal had 85 questions back then, if someone answers every question incorrectly, a raw score of -21.25 is technically possible. A raw score between 5 and -21.25 was reported as a 200. The raw scores, though actually converted to something and a 0 raw score, for instance on this test, might technically be a 160!</p>
<p>On a side note, consider peeking at this site ----->[SAT</a> : Getting the lowest score possible](<a href=“http://www.colinfahey.com/sat/sat.html]SAT”>http://www.colinfahey.com/sat/sat.html). This is a man who, after getting his masters degree, thought it might be cool to attempt to take the SAT and answer each and every question wrong in an attempt to get the lowest raw score possible. Sure, he did get a 200 on all three sections, but he accidentally answered two questions right!</p>
<p>sorry about the double post. I think I had 2 browsers up.</p>