Old SAT scores compared to redesigned SAT scores.

Applying to College
61

I find the Vandy data compelling, but how about a larger school with a different profile, like Boston College:

http://bcheights.com/2017/01/18/2900-admitted-class-2021-acceptance-rate-slightly-33-percent/

The Office of Undergraduate Admission admitted 2,900 students to the Boston College Class of 2021 in December, about 33 percent of a pool of 9,000. Last year’s early action acceptance rate was 32 percent, with a pool of about 8,500 applicants, marking a 5 percent increase this year in early applications.

Admitted students averaged a 33 on the ACT and a 1425 on the SAT, which was updated this year by the College Board to a 1600-point scale and a new Evidence-Based Writing and Reading section. Last year’s early action admits averaged a 33 on the ACT and a 2128 on the old 2400-point SAT.

If you look at the CB concordance, a new SAT 1425 concords to a 2030.

https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/pdf/higher-ed-brief-sat-concordance.pdf

Now, who would you rather believe? BC, which de facto concords new SAT 1425 to old SAT 2128 to ACT 33, or a CB concordance chart based on some unidentified research population, the very technique that produced PSAT catastrophe?

Vandy, BC, Williams, Virginia et al have skin in the game and they’re not admitting weaker students. If I were an applicant with 7xx and 7xx scores, I’d be happier if they were the new SAT.

62

@LadyMeowMeow I agree. Taking things a bit further, anybody who has 700+ in new SAT M and EBRW as well as 2 SAT Subject Tests (in relevant subjects) can probably rest easier and know that their decisions will likely be based on other aspects of their application.

63

Agreed. I have kiddos took BOTH the Old SAT and the New SAT. These kiddos scored 2150 to 2250 in the OLD test and wanna pushed higher in the New One. Based on the table, I told these kids they should expect scores in the high 1400s to low 1500s, so they need to do proper prep with the CB real tests before taking the real thing (March, May 2016). They came back with scores between 1430 to 1510. On average, they are about 30-40 pts BELOW the concordance table suggests. I think this drama is being played out all across admissions office this cycle. Who knows, maybe the AO will complete ignore the table and let the new SAT to settle on its own merits. I expect next cycle, there will be fewer kids with the OLD SAT in the pool, most applicants will have the new test for the application.

64

@londondad

<<really?? that=“” is=“” a=“” pretty=“” broad=“” and=“” arbitrary=“” assumption.=“”>></really??>

Not really. If you go back a couple years you can read lots of testing consultants recommending that kids in HS class of 2017 wanting to do serious prep should go for either the old SAT or the ACT. For example, Adam Ingersoll at Compass wrote articles about this. The key was, prior to junior year for this cohort, you had access to like ten previously administered and scored old SATs and ACTs, as well as a wide variety of prep materials for both tests. As compared to exactly zero previously administered and scored new SATs. In fact, the first new SAT scores weren’t even released until junior year was over. And many highly competitive students want to be totally finished with their SAT Reasoning/ACT before the start of summer ahead of senior year. So there was just no comparison in terms of the amount of quality prep material available for the different tests.

<<just one=“” example=“” -=“” for=“” a=“” number=“” of=“” reasons=“” (including=“” but=“” not=“” limited=“” to=“” trying=“” fit=“” in=“” sat=“” subject=“” tests=“” and=“” sats=“” around=“” the=“” ridiculously=“” rigorous=“” british=“” national=“” curriculum)=“” my=“” dd=“” decided=“” take=“” new=“” was=“” still=“” able=“” do=“” “serious=”" prep=“” work"=“” rock=“” her=“” exams.=“”>>

Yeah, I probably wouldn’t extrapolate too wildly from a single student who is not in the American system. Especially when the focus here is on understanding the validity of high-end concordances for tests administered overwhelmingly to students in the American system.

<>

If by truly intelligent, you mean those with high IQs, I would say the old SAT is your friend here. It was more g-loaded (i.e., more highly correlated with IQ) than the ACT, which is more of a performance test (i.e., how quickly can you answer relatively straightforward questions in a limited amount of time, as opposed to how good you are at solving tricky questions that many won’t be able to solve regardless of how much time they have). http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/koening2008.pdf

I don’t know if there have been any studies of the g-loading of the new SAT, but since the test was designed to be more “straightforward” like the ACT, I will hazard a guess that it’s less g-loaded than the old SAT.

As far as gaming the system goes, every system can be exploited, and I believe your daughter was correct in thinking there would be a marginal advantage to those with high ability in taking a test whose exploits haven’t been discovered. But to the extent that the test is like the ACT (i.e., time-critical), one of the most common exploits is to get testing accommodations. If the problems are straightforward but you need to work fast, it sure helps if you have twice as much time as everybody else. And I would say that exploit would work just as well on the new SAT as on the ACT.

65

Another thing about the old SAT was that there were multiple opportunities to superscore, which I am sure is significant in affecting the higher scores on the old test.

66

@bucketDad

<<i agree.="" but="" how="" they="" differ="" is="" anybody’s="" guess.="" were="" those="" who="" took="" the="" old="" sat="" more="" savvy="" and="" smart?="" or="" did="" benefit="" from="" a="" larger="" body="" of="" test="" prep="" material,="" both="" legal="" illegal?="">><i agree.="" but="" how="" they="" differ="" is="" anybody’s="" guess.="" were="" those="" who="" took="" the="" old="" sat="" more="" savvy="" and="" smart?="" or="" did="" benefit="" from="" a="" larger="" body="" of="" test="" prep="" material,="" both="" legal="" illegal?="">

I will add my own anecdote here. DD goes to a private HS with a very competitive senior class—top 15% have 35+ ACT or the SAT equivalent. None of them took the new SAT. Some of the students didn’t study at all, some studied a lot. In the case of DD, whose first language is not in the IndoEuropean language family, she did a lot of prep on Critical Reading ahead of junior year, using the publicly available (legal) previous administrations of the old SAT. This was enough for a 2360 on the October, 2015 SAT. One and done. Why bother even looking at the new SAT?

Now, that’s just one school, but it’s not just one kid. Different kids from different backgrounds, but at least among the top 15%, nobody took the new SAT. Probably the kids who could ace it without studying, could ace the ACT without studying (and thereby keep those SAT test dates open for Subject Tests).

<<in the="" end,="" what="" matters="" is="" admissions="" committees="" think…and="" i="" think="" they="" are="" treating="" pools="" as="" if="" were="" same,="" and="" ignoring="" concordance="" tables.="">>

I don’t know what the AOs are doing, and of course it might vary from school to school, but I would guess they generally listen to the professional psychometricians at the College Board and use the concordance tables.

67

“I don’t know what the AOs are doing, and of course it might vary from school to school, but I would guess they generally listen to the professional psychometricians at the College Board and use the concordance tables.”

At this point we don’t really know and will probably never know, but at least based on the bits of evidence that are trickling out of top LACs/universities (e.g., Williams and UVA) they do not seem to be “concording” the New SATs with Old SATs as the average New SAT scores of admitted students are lower.

68

@dragonmom3

<<another thing="" about="" the="" old="" sat="" was="" that="" there="" were="" multiple="" opportunities="" to="" superscore,="" which="" i="" am="" sure="" is="" significant="" in="" affecting="" higher="" scores="" on="" test.="">>

Very few kids take the test more than three or four times, and it would have been possible to get in that many tests on the new SAT in time for early applications. Apart from the lack of previously administered tests to study, one of the key drawbacks to the new SAT was that scores from the first administration were not released ahead of the second administration, so it would have been more difficult for students taking the test twice in a row to know which areas needed improvement. This drawback was known in advance, so it would not be surprising if the students who were most concerned about their scores would have self-selected into taking the ACT last spring.

69

@keiekei “Different kids from different backgrounds, but at least among the top 15%, nobody took the new SAT.”

Definitely not the case at my daughter’s competitive public HS. My daughter wanted more opportunities to hit her target and made the choice for herself to go with the new SAT. When I asked her what other top kids were doing, it was all across the board. There was no prevailing strategy among her peers that would have pushed her in any direction. She started test prep in January, got 1510 in March, 1570 in October.

When this is all done, it would be interesting to see if people who went with the new SAT feel that choice was a bad one.

70

^ “When this is all done, it would be interesting to see if people who went with the new SAT feel that choice was a bad one.”

Good point. Based on personal experiences, does anyone here think that focusing on the New SAT only was a bad decision?

71

Guess we’ll find out, won’t we? :wink:

72

Same here. None of our high school’s strong students took the new SAT. It was either old SAT or ACT.

73

D told us that she was going to new SAT one year before…she said June test has a better curve historically. She executed in June 2016…once and out. But I was nervous, as for a while she is the only kid I know who didn’t have standard test score…she did have many subject tests. Medium size public school where a lot of kids get test prep…D thought the test prep just illustrates the power of tutors. She studied using published tests online and other tests she can find online.

She got 5 wrong in reading (700 in reading) and got a score of 1550, for every reading question worth 20 points…she got writing and math perfect. I am still bitter about it… I think math kids got penalized. For math, the table concords to 36.5 or half points, so you have opportunity to get 730. For reading, you either get 36 or 37, meaning you would only get 720!

74

Re: SAT only - that’s my S, and I guess we’ll see. He went SAT-only because he loathes standardized testing. The PSAT forced his hand because of the possibility for Nat’l Merit. Knowing that he’d have to take the SAT at least once for a confirming score meant eliminating the ACT as far as he was concerned.

He has an SI of 223 in CA, and he scored 1490 (760ERBW / 730M on the January SAT. He will most likely retake the SAT at some point to nudge his score above 1500 and to allow for superscoring.

I don’t think limiting himself to the SAT will hurt him, but he is also not applying to super-elite schools. Tulane is his highest ranked school, and the others are all big scholarship NMF schools.

That said, he wants the 1500+ so he can be competitive for a couple of non-NMF scholarships, such as the McDermott at UT Dallas and the PT/DHS/Stamps at Tulane.

75

@keiekei “I don’t know what the AOs are doing, and of course it might vary from school to school, but I would guess they generally listen to the professional psychometricians at the College Board and use the concordance tables.”

Based on my experience with the “professional psychometricians” at CB during the 2015 PSAT fiasco, I would hope that’s the last thing they’re doing, and from the ED results released so far, it looks like they aren’t.

See @suzyQ7 for a pungent opinion about CB’s trustworthiness:

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19907458/#Comment_19907458

76

^ I agree with @LadyMeowMeow.

So far there is no evidence whatsoever that highly competitive universities are listening “to the professional psychometricians at the College Board and use the concordance tables.”

77

I posted links to these blogs in the SAT concordance forum:

http://www.chyten.com/blog/is-the-new-sats-new-concordance-table-fair-and-accurate/

http://www.chyten.com/blog/insider-secrets-about-the-october-1-2016-sat-scores/

In some ways I wish my son’s elite private HS would have told him to stick with old SAT or ACT as then he would have “better” (& perhaps more reliable) scores. But, my son hated the ACT format (& got a really low score on the PLAN) & he preferred the SAT. I was encouraged by this blog’s contention that the Oct 2016 SAT’s CR section was harder because my son did better. In fact, he’s not super scoring as his Oct 2016 score is better on both fronts than Mar 2016.

My son didn’t really have the opportunity to take the new SAT 3-4 times due to SATII tests & other life events (like ROTC scholarship interview on an SAT weekend & he chose to go for the interview rather than take the SAT again). The Ad Dir of USC spoke at our HS & told parents that 2x taking SAT/ACT is enough — that there is no difference in the adcom’s eyes between a 2250 & 2400. Both of those students are extremely qualified. But schools such as USC are looking holistically at the whole person – and they don’t want a superscore from 3-4 sittings…

Lastly, based on the merit scholarships that my son received at UMiami & Fordham, I don’t think they are using the concordance table (at least strictly). His score of 1390, if concorded, is a 1330 – but that score would be too low to qualify for the merit scholarships he received.

78

At the risk of extending a thread that has reached its natural end, I’d like to add two points. First, the data from the University of Georgia early admissions, which represents over 8000 admissions:

Applications Received: 15,614
Offers of Admission: 8,059
Mid 50% Admitted Average GPA: 4.00-4.26
Mid 50% Admitted Average SAT (old, CR+M): 1300-1480

Mid 50% Admitted Average SAT (new, EBRW+M): 1300-1430
Mid 50% Admitted Average ACT: 30-33
Mid 50% Admitted AP/IB/MOWR courses (over 4 years: 6-11)
http://ugaadmissions.blogspot.com/2016/11/early-action-decisions-are-available.html

To reach the top quartile, 1480 was necessary for the old SAT and 1430 for the new. Again, this suggests that somewhere around 700 per section (or 1400 combined), the new test gets more difficult. The cutoff for the lowest quartile is identical: at 650 (or 1300 combined) the tests function similarly.

As for the argument that smart, test-prepping kids opted for the old SAT, my thought is that for every 10 smart, test-preppers who did that, there were another 10 who saw them doing that and opted for the new SAT. Individual schools here or there may have had preferences or even pressures to choose one test over another, but it’s always been near-impossible to game the SAT by choosing the right date/ cohort.

79

LadyMeowMeow, Thanks, I think the topic could just be starting, the more info we have the better. It will not only help those waiting to hear decisions to get a better understanding of whats going on, but more stats will help those students who are juniors figure out a good range of schools. My daughter picked the New SAT just because she thought the rest of the year of school work would help. We left it up to her and didn’t think it would matter that much. And when others say the really smart kids took the Old SAT your pretty much saying our kids aren’t really smart, which makes me a little defensive when I read it.

“Successful people don’t blame it on good luck.”

80

What is MOWR?