The NY Times about a week ago listed the estimated averages for the new SAT from the Princeton Review for 17 schools. For those who haven’t seem them yet, here they are:
CalTech: 2,230
Harvard: 2,225
MIT: 2,195
Amherst: 2,165
Washington-St. Louis: 2,130
Penn: 2,110
USC: 2,025
Virginia: 2,000
UC-Berkeley: 1,985
NYU: 1,985
Trinity College: 1,970
Boston U: 1,960
Michigan: 1,955
UCLA: 1,945
Miami (Fl.): 1,900
SUNY-Binghamton: 1,895
Syracuse: 1,875
<p>Are you serious... I already know a couple of students whose achieved 2,400 on the new SAT. Do you really think this is accurate? The numbers seem extremely low. Did they write how they estimated the averages?</p>
<p>The numbers may be brought down do to recuited altheletes, URMs, lecacies, etc.</p>
<p>These are not low. One must remember that a 2100 is equal to a 1400 on the old SAT, a 2200 to a 1500, etc.</p>
<p>Besides, these are AVERAGES. Meaning approximately half scored higher, and half scored lower.</p>
<p>A 2250 would be equivalent to 1500, actually.</p>
<p>How did they get these numbers? The first admissions round to include the new SAT hasn't started yet.</p>
<p>They probably added the reported (old) SAT score with the SAT II Writing.</p>
<p>These aren't low. semiserious is right.</p>
<p>They look very low.</p>
<p>Actually these look very high to me. I mean, yeah, it's Harvard, but with that estimated average, one would have approximately a 740 per section. That's a bit ambitious, isn't it?</p>
<p>They probably have an idea due to kids having their scores sent to the schools when they took the tests.</p>
<p>Those seem high to me.</p>
<p>I was just on the Princeton Review web site and didn't see these. I even went to several schools such as Syracuse. Can someone show me where on Princeton Review I can find this info?</p>
<p>Some seem high, others seem low.</p>
<p>If they just added the SAT II writing to the SAT I score, it would be inaccurate. The SAT II writing has a much more generous curve than the new writing.</p>
<p>MIT's average is a 1460 (coverted back to old) while washU's average is a 1420 (coverted back to old)? That doesn't make any sense. MIT seems too low and washU seems too high. Not to mention I don't think washU is higher than Penn</p>
<p>For the graduating HS Class of 2006; does the new SAT total score really matter? It seems that many schools are taking a wait and see look at the writing section. Math and verbal will still be the main sections evaluated. Also, some schools are permitting the old SAT.</p>
<p>Atomicfusion -- although I agree with you that 1460 sounds low for MIT, it's possible that the MIT numbers are low because 2/3 of the new SAT score is in verbal and writing. </p>
<p>Although most MIT admits score well on both portions of the old SAT, those who score poorly on one section are far more likely to have that section be verbal. I think the new SAT makeup would tend to exacerbate the difference between verbal and math scores for many admits.</p>
<p>Give WashU some credit! From CB's website...</p>
<p>SAT Reasoning Verbal: 660 - 740
SAT Reasoning Math: 690 - 780</p>
<p>Question, so how did they come up with these numbers? Just add up the average old SAT scores with the SAT2 Writing?</p>