<p>could the OP show the source of the 40,000+ math scores over 750. According to this CB data, there are only about 12,000 students with combined scores over 2250 (750 x3)
<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat_percentile_ranks_composite_cr_m_w.pdf[/url]”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board;
<p>
</p>
<p>I know there’s a link for SAT Math similar to the one you linked to. I can’t seem to find it right now, however.</p>
<p>I think the SAT has largely become a marketing gimmick and a cash cow – for the College Board, the test-prep industry – and as a way of artificially inflating the perceived desirability and selectivity of elite colleges. So it benefits the overall testing industry to offer a test where high end scores are attainable to a large enough percentage of test-takers to provide a critical mass – that is, if it was perceived as near-impossible to get scores over 700, then more students who scored 650 would opt to stick with their scores rather than retake the exam; only students with significantly lower scores would enroll in test-prep classes; and the overall range of scores at top colleges would adjust downward to whatever was perceived as a reasonably-attainable score for high end students.</p>
<p>I found the source: 30,687 is the correct number, not “over 40,500.” And for Critical Reading, 19,884 is the correct number, not “24,000.” (Note that my numbers are from 2009, whereas the OP cited numbers from 2008. However, it’s still hard to believe that his or her numbers are correct.)</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>And, it would have to be shown that one more correct answer was significant.
And even then, one could argue that the SAT math tests measure only a rather narrow slice of ability, so, to be really certainly, you would then have to give both groups another series of tests that were more difficult. (AMCs, Mandelbrots - there are plenty to pick from).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Logic would suffice.</p>
<p>
I assume that nemom is referring to statistical significance, which is exactly the standard by which any such study would need to be evaluated.</p>
<p>^ Ah, I tend to assume that as the intention only when the word is modified to indicate that.</p>
<p>Wow interesting debate. I have to side with bovertine though- this guy and I both did algebra II trig 8th grade, both continued on to finish bc calc sophomore year ect ect. He’s ever bit as mathematically capable as me, if not more bc he’s actually more of the “intellectual” type. I got an 800 on math . He didn’t. That says absolutely nothing- in this case a 770 ( or possibly slightly lower I don’t know his exact scores) is just as good (or should be) as an 800.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/Total_Group_Report.pdf[/url]”>http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/Total_Group_Report.pdf</a></p>
<p>page 6.</p>
<p><a href=“Note%20that%20my%20numbers%20are%20from%202009,%20whereas%20the%20OP%20cited%20numbers%20from%202008.%20However,%20it’s%20still%20hard%20to%20believe%20that%20his%20or%20her%20numbers%20are%20correct.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
Something I’m missing here? I compared the exact same report from 73 to this report from 2008. Maybe it’s slightly different for 2009, but still a big difference.</p>
<p>^ That chart does not show the statistic. Here is what you want:</p>
<p><a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/SAT-Math-Percentile-Ranks-2009.pdf[/url]”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board;
<p><a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/SAT-Critical-Reading-Percentile-Ranks-2009.pdf[/url]”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board;
<p>This isn’t related to the topic, but I was surprised by the significant gender gap in top Math scores that my link indicated. (.97% of males and .38% of females had 800.)</p>
<p>
What statistic?
What in the world are you talking about? I compared the total group statistics for college bound students in 1973 and 2008. This shows the statitistics for, and I quote
“Data in this report are for high school graduates in the year 2008. Information is summarized for seniors who took the SAT Reasoning Test™ at any time during their high school years through March 2008. If a student took the test more than once, the most recent score is used.”</p>
<p>It shows on page 6 the students in each score level using this criteria.</p>
<p>^^ The “myth” of a “gender gap” in SAT Math scores is quite real</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The score range included in your link is 750-800. Maybe I’m missing something.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had heard that but have been unaware of the extent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One of us is. Seriously. We’re talking about Math only. 2008. THat was what my statement was based on. As I understand, the top score is 800. I said there were 40,000 students who scored above 750. This shows 40,000 students in the range from 750-800. Is there a difference?</p>
<p>I know that the 2009 report only lists 700 and above (or 700-800). That’s why I didn’t use it for the comparison. Your rank information for 2009 is more accurate for that year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, of approximately 10,000.</p>
<p>
People usually prefer to avoid the topic, and smartly so.</p>
<p>bovertine, </p>
<p>You are aware of the definitions of above and over and how they contrast with inclusive in this context?</p>