On a thread started by spayurpets on Early Decision acceptance rates, I noticed the students who summited old SAT scores on average had higher SAT scores than the students who summited redesigned “new” SAT scores. The SAT has concordance tables that would suggest the new SAT scores will be inflated, but to a lesser extent at the far ends of the scale. Maybe there isn’t enough of a sampling yet, but it appears this inflation may not be as large as they thought, or even not at all. Any thoughts?
Yes, I also noticed that, if you look up Williams College’s profile of the students accepted early decision this year, they reported both an old SAT average and a new SAT average-- as some students had taken the old and some the New in this transitional admissions cycle-- and the new SAt average was ever so slightly lower. I had expected it to be higher based on the concordance tables.
I’m also hoping others can explain this. It’s honestly making me feel good considering my new SAT scores will be considered the equivalent to the old SAT.
Anyone?
How likely is it that colleges will provide data for both new and old SAT scores when the Common Data Sets for this admissions season are published?
^ So far some schools (UVA and Williams) have for their early admits. I assume that others will as well as more schools publish admissions stats.
On the old SAT I got a 2040 (610w, 640m, 790r) which is in the 94th percentile. According to the concordance chart, I should have gotten a 1430 (98th percentile, I believe) on the new SAT. Although I did score within that range on practice tests, I ended up getting a 1380 (690 on both sections).
I have heard some discussion about the concordance tables being inaccurate.
This is really the last class it will matter for.
Whether scores for the new trend higher or lower is going to vary by college. It’s a wait and see.
If you’re targeting a tippy top, your new scores may need to be higher than for the old. Eg, a new score of 1400 (call it 700 each) is roughly equal to an old 660-670 each. The old 710 may now need to be a new 740.
Sorry for the pressure that adds, but it’ll shake out in the next year or two. Meanwhile, remember it’s holistic.
@greenteen17 your increase is good. Remember, the old R is extracted, so you have to come up with the sub numbers for comparison. Both your new scores jumped nicely, I believe they exceeded just the new score inflation.
@lookingforward “If you’re targeting a tippy top, your new scores may need to be higher than for the old. Eg, a new score of 1400 (call it 700 each) is roughly equal to an old 660-670 each. The old 710 may now need to be a new 740.”
You may well be right, but I am not fully convinced. One reason is that the new scores in the top range seem to be coming in lower on the new exam (as illustrated by the UVA and Williams results). Another reason is that for someone who took the Spring 2016 New SAT (as my DD did) there was only limited time to prepare and limited materials to study from (as many prepping services were not fully up to speed at that point) so for many students this hopefully created a more level playing field compared to the old SAT where some kids were taking SATs in freshman, sophomore, junior and senior year. Lastly, maybe I am a bit confused on this point, but how can my daughter’s scores be compared to the old SAT when she never took that exam? Isn’t it good enough that she scored over 95% on both Math and CR every time she took the new SAT? Maybe I am a bit biased as my daughter focused on her SAT Subject tests in Autumn 2015 and did the SAT twice last Spring (International kids were not allowed to take the March 2016 test which was a bit frustrating). It seems to have worked out for her as she is very happy with her scores (when not concorded to the old SAT!) but we will see how many tippy-top schools she gets into next month. Thanks for listening!
@lookingforward “If you’re targeting a tippy top, your new scores may need to be higher than for the old. Eg, a new score of 1400 (call it 700 each) is roughly equal to an old 660-670 each. The old 710 may now need to be a new 740.”
I’m with @londonddad, I’m not yet convinced. Do you have any evidence other than the concordance published by the college board? I know from watching the PSAT follies that their concordances can be way off. Until more data comes in, I’ll remain agnostic about how to compare the tests numerically.
The feedback that my D has gotten and what I’ve seen from released scores is that the concordance tables didn’t work at the top end.
I also suspect that the concordance tables are inflated, at least at the upper range. I recently updated a spreadsheet of schools to which my daughter has applied and I inputted both the ACT and the concorded SAT estimates provided by Naviance that were calculated according to old SAT statistics from the previous year. They seem out of line with the ACT scores in % terms.
Unfortunately that doesn’t help this year’s applicants for those schools that have decided to adopt the concordance tables.
“Unfortunately that doesn’t help this year’s applicants for those schools that have decided to adopt the concordance tables.”
Good point. Can anybody name any schools that have stated explicitly that they are following concordance tables? I assume that some of the state flagships that have merit awards (or direct entry into popular programmes) are but does anyone have any specific examples?
The other theory that gets batted around is that the “savvy” (i.e. better) students all took the old SAT, making that pool of 2017 applicants more talented. I don’t buy that at all. Given that many schools superscore, I didn’t think that restricting a student to the old SAT (and the limited # of test opportunities) was such a great strategy. Better off with the New SAT and more test opportunities to hit their target score. I know many other savvy students who agreed.
Half-kidding here, @bucketDad, but all those savvy “old SAT” takers should be glad they didn’t have kids like my daughter in their pool. More seriously, I don’t think there’s any meaningful way to compare the “old” and “new” SAT test-taking cohorts.
But what does it means to “accept” the concordance tables?
There is a limited amount of students out there and the colleges will need to accept the set amounts of students they always do. So if Northeastern for example says according to concordance I except an average of 1420 and there are not enough students that applied with those numbers they ll have to drop the average. It is not a choice. What else can they do? That’s why UVA and Williams are reporting lower numbers. How is this hurting students? Maybe I am missing something.
@am9799 if you look at a common data set for a university, you’ll see why “accepting the concordance” could disadvantage some students. Take Northwestern as an example: http://enrollment.northwestern.edu/pdf/common-data/2016-17.pdf They say: “Do not convert SAT scores to ACT scores and vice versa. Do convert New SAT scores (2016) to Old SAT scores using the College Board’s concordance tools and tables (Score Comparisons – SAT Suite | College Board).”
If the published SAT concordance tool turns out to be inaccurate – and this could easily be the case – then in hindsight one group of students will turn out to have been (dis)advantaged in admissions.
For the top universities with acceptance rates at or below 10%, there are plenty of approximate ties among students. Since SAT scores can be used to break ties, the erroneous concordance will have created “lucky” and “unlucky” groups.
@LadyMeowMeow
So those schools will draw more students from the old sat and the act and punish the students that took the new sat. Would not that be obvious to those schools? It is to us.
Anyway, we will have to see the reported results.