<p>Yeah, SAT is a blunt tool, but what is the fine tool? Grades are a blunt tool. Essays are a blunt tool. Recs are a blunt tool. AP and IB are blunt tools. And all of them can be gamed. Each of them is individually not that good, but I guess the theory is that collectively they add up to a good admissions decision, or at least the best decision we can reasonably have access to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Surely this is intentional self-satirization.</p>
<p>^^^ No, it’s called a request.</p>
<p>If anyone is interested, here’s a table that re-enters the scores:</p>
<p>[SAT</a> I Individual Score Equivalents](<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/equivalence-tables/sat-score]SAT”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board)</p>
<p>Note that if you got a 700 or above on the math section in the old test, there was not much of a change when recentering. Did get a bump up on the verbal part, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You require that I go find someone who scored 770 on the Math section and find a question that he or she cannot solve, then report all the relevant factors on this thread before you concede that your original claim was incorrect? Do you honestly assert that every single person who has ever scored 770 on the Math section can solve every single SAT Math question that has ever been released? Apparently you do not assert this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So why do you require an example? I do not agree with your contention that such a situation would be very rare, but how would an example disprove that?</p>
<p>There’s nothing inherently wrong with blunt provided that it is scored as such. AP exams are terribly blunt, but the scoring is equally lacking in specificity.</p>
<p>If you are really complaining about the low examination standards, then I agree. The following thread had some interesting discussion on this topic: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-act-tests-test-preparation/777718-9-9-09-todays-sat-qotd-why-math-section-sat-needs-reworked.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-act-tests-test-preparation/777718-9-9-09-todays-sat-qotd-why-math-section-sat-needs-reworked.html</a></p>
<p>
That was my whole point in saying that the recentering does not account for the huge differences between 1973 and 2008.
Your 750 in 1973 recenters to about 750 in 2008. So you would assume a similar number of students would score above those levels if the recentering was accurate.</p>
<p>
I was not expecting to prove or disprove anything.
I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the difference between a 770 on the exam and an 800 is not indicative of any real difference in mathematical ability.</p>
<p>And let me clarify “stupid” mistake. I take that in a broad sense. It may also be that there is a problem with a certain “twist” to it, that eludes a student on a specific exam. I don’t believe the student missing that problem is dispositive of anything either.</p>
<p>
Of course not, as you noted. But I don’t believe a student who scored 800 on one test could necessarily solve every SAT Math problem ever written either.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No, you would assume that a similar <em>percentage</em> of students taking the test would score above those levels. The numbers of students applying to college has mushroomed since the early 1970s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I have often indicated in previous debates to this effect, it’s all about correlation. Sure, not all 800ers are better at math than all the 770ers, but the average 800er is certainly better at math than the average 770er. Thus, the difference is indicative of a real difference in mathematical ability.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why did you ask?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I think I reported above, 1974 was a high level for college-bound students. The number taking the SAT test then was 1.1M. It was 1.5M in 2008. That’s hardly skyrocketing.</p>
<p>Yet the overall numbers for Math >750 went up about 4 or 5 times.</p>
<p>Yes, very interesting that over 4 times as many kids get over 750 on the math section now, when the population taking the exam only went up 40% and the recentering adds nothing.</p>
<p>I do remember, back in the day, none of us studied or prepared for the SATs, as we were told that it was like taking an IQ test - you couldn’t study for it. Well, that was certainly incorrect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Others have reported that studying for the SAT was as common in their high schools decades ago as it is now. Certainly, though, the practice is more pervasive today. And I think that’s a good thing; students are able to demonstrate their abilities without being disadvantaged because of an unfamiliarity with the format. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both tests are able to be studied for. Plus, strong correlations between the two metrics exist.</p>
<p>
Sometimes I ask things out of curiosity. </p>
<p>
It’s possible but for me to concede this for any two particular groups of students they would have to take the same exact tests the same exact number of times, and it would have to show a clear, repeated pattern over several administrations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“have to” in order for what to occur?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you are still curious, I can start a thread in the SAT Preparation forum asking 770ers whether they have ever not been able to solve a question and find out what the questions are.</p>
<p>
A few others may have reported this, but I didn’t know anybody who prepped. And there were no prep courses. Also no calculators, and almost nobody took it more than once.</p>
<p>Plus the exam content was very different. At least on the Verbal side.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t comment on the extent to which others’ sentiments reflect the reality. (I’m a high school junior.)</p>
<p>Okay, this is tiresome.</p>
<p>
Group A would have to consistently answer one more question correctly than Group B over several administrations of various exams for me to believe that Group A had any real superiority to Group B.</p>
<p>Don’t start any threads for me. I’m already bored, and I don’t look to threads on message boards to do research.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your standard for proof is unreasonable in the context of college admissions. Correlations of scores to abilities are the best we can do.</p>