SAT concordance table - compare old and new SAT scores

@snowfairy137
First of all there are very few schools require subject tests these days,but there are also some specific majors in certain schools require them. Nevertheless, for the competitive schools that recommend subject test scores, most people would treat it as required.
Second, there are only around 20 schools that require/recommend subject tests no matter SAT or ACT with writing is submitted. The number of schools that recommend/require subject test scores but can be waived by submitting ACT with writing is much much larger. I have a list of subject test requirement from several years ago with several hundred schools on it. Over the last few years, many schools have changed their requirement and I don’the ant to post outdated information to mislead people. However, you may still find the information on this forum from several years ago. I have posted it multiple times around 4 years ago.

@Living61 I have not heard anything about the College Board revising its SAT-ACT concordance table and personally, I suspect that will not happen. Table 7 is the New-SAT-to-ACT concordance table, located on page 7 in the 2016 packet of concordance tables for the New SAT https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/pdf/higher-ed-brief-sat-concordance.pdf

They don’t need to change the concordance table if they simply change the curves for score. On the other hand, ACT does not agree on that concordance table.

Just one more comment on SAT Subject Tests. @billcsho is correct that specific majors at certain schools require/recommend them, and this is something students may not notice until senior year when they are applying. For example here is the list of Subject Tests recommended by certain colleges and programs within the UC system.

http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/requirements/examination-requirement/SAT-subject-tests/index.html

Our HS has problems in this area, because some of the GCs tell students they don’t need to worry about Subject Tests without asking if their major is on this list.


The last time ACT put out a concordance table, they did a study and had some cooperation from the College Board. I’m not sure if anyone has linked to the letter the ACT put out disputing the SAT<->ACT concordance table. This WaPo article quotes the entire letter:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/05/12/whats-a-college-test-score-worth-an-sat-vs-act-dispute/?utm_term=.f7b2116a3777

The letter states:

Yes, that is what I referring to by saying ACT does not agree on that concordance table from CB. When the have obtained more data, there shall be one table accepted by both companies just like in the old days. That should be the revision we are expecting soon.

@Ynotgo that article was written 15 months ago. Does anyone have any idea if/when ACT will come out with its own concordance table? Or when SAT may revise theirs? The article states that one year of data is needed to be more accurate. One year of tests has passed.

If you use the UC example from an earlier post you can draw your own conclusions, for example, UCLA and CAL together had approximately 185,000 applications last year (yes, a small sample size). The mid 50% ranges are below for the new SAT, ACT and what the College Board and prepscholar concordance tables calculate.

UCLA/Cal - Mid 50%                                                                           

New SAT CR+W - 640-730

New SAT Math - 640-770/760

Combined SAT - 1,280-1,500/1,490

ACT - 30-34

So the actual data from UCLA and CAL showed a 1,280 was equivalent of a 30 ACT and a 1,500 UCLA and 1,490 CAL was a 34. The college board concordance table 7 show a 1,280 is a 27 and a 1,500/1,490 is a 33. However, the prepscholar table shows a 1,280 is a 28 and a 1,500/1,490 is a 34.

Finally, I’ve seen a lot of questions on the SAT essay and the published mid-50% for the New SAT essay at both schools is 16-20, in case anyone was wondering what’s a “good” essay score.

^ It is not uncommon that each school has their own concordance table. Different schools may put different weight in different section scores. One obvious example is the use of CR+M instead of composite score at many schools. It is hard to draw a conclusion from a single school particularly with limited data admission data. For instance, if one look at the UMich admission data from last year (2016 freshmen), the mid 50 ACT was 30-34 while new SAT mid 50 was 1440-1570. The main problem is there are only ~25% students submit SAT while most are with the old SAT while 80%+ submitted ACT. In the old concordance table, ACT and SAT actually looked at the students that took both to come us with the table.

So all of the CDSs that I’ve looked at say this “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).” I assume that means that the scores, then, on each of these CDS’s is an OLD SAT score or a new one converted to an old one.

We are looking mostly at LACs. For Carleton, it says their 75th percentile for math is a 770. That would be a 790 on the new test! Yet, the ACT score 75th percentile is a 33. Which is certainly not anywhere close to a 790 on any section. A 790 almost always means only one wrong on SAT math.

At the higher percentiles, I guess it just means you’d better be pretty darn high on the new SAT. Practically perfect.

@billcsho

Why would you compare the 2016 UMich data to the 2017 UC data when Umich has published their 2017 data as the mid 50% of New SAT is 1,350-1,530 and ACT 31-34. In official college board concordance, a 1,350 is a 29 and a 1,530 is a 34 and prepscholar has a 1,350 as a 30 and a 1,530 as a 34.

@59lespaul By no mean I am comparing data between two schools or two year. I am saying one cannot look at one school and one year data to reverse engineer a concordance table. Read again carefully.

Because the CDS data is based on 2016-17 applicants/admits, it is not useful for Class of 2017-18. Most of the schools are using the inaccurate concordance predictions, regardless of the fact that they have the actual data. Many keep using last year’s data, notwithstanding the availability of current figures. I believe that the fact that the new SAT scores came out much lower than predicted led many schools to play games. Some examples. Chicago still hasn’t and won’t release its info until 3rd week of semester. Grinnell still has class of 2015 numbers. Wesleyan, Bowdoin, Carleton all play games and really suggest that the scores on the SAT were really the numbers predicted by the Concordance Table. When you compare their numbers with Princeton and Stanford’s one would think Princeton and Stanford’s middle 50 and medians are significantly below those schools. Moreover, some midwest states were hit hard by the political divide as described by this interesting article. http://kenyoncollegian.com/2017/04/13/political-divide-impacts-class-of-2021-admissions/ . In my view, this has led insecure administrators to try to hide the actual numbers until forced to do so. Having spent far too much time trying to decipher all of this, I am absolutely convinced that the new SAT scores in the 1300-1600 ranges will be significantly lower than the old, as much as 40-80 points.

This is so messed up. So @KennyT , are you saying that 2018 kids (and maybe 2019 kids) are looking at inflated numbers because some schools are using the concordance table but, in reality, the numbers are much lower? Ugh!

What about asking a school directly? S19 has tons of admissions reps coming for one hour presentations starting this week. He’s going to two on Thursday. Maximum 50 kids per session but I think some have far fewer kids. Could he ask about the 75th percentile for the SAT last year? Wonder what they would say…

@homerdog Some colleges put the data right on their websites, but many have not updated yet with Class of 2021 stats. See, e.g., Carleton https://apps.carleton.edu/admissions/apply/requirements/profile/ (class of 2020 profile). It seems to me that individual college websites might be the only place to get New SAT data if the 2017-18 CDS should mix Old and New, with one set concorded to the other. If the CDS does that, it will be unhelpful where scores are concerned. In addition to college websites, there may be the random admissions blog or news article that includes New SAT numbers. It’s hit-or-miss.

@evergreen5 I’ve seen that page on the Carleton site but it does not say it’s using New SAT data on that bar graph. And it doesn’t call out 75th percentile. All you can kind of see is that 3/4 of the enrolled kids who used an SAT score got above a 1400.

@homerdog That’s only because class of 2020 did not take the New SAT. Still, whether a college breaks out New and Old scores on its website will vary by school. A few schools have done so already and most of those are cited somewhere in this long thread. E.g., Vanderbilt, Williams.

Davidson called out New SAT on their website. I guess the place for me to search is not common data sets, but the schools’ websites.

Davidson Class of 2021 New SAT
CR-W 650-730 Math 640-730.

homerdog, that’s exactly right. One good thing is that it’s a bonus for class of 2018 high school grad who took the new SAT and now realize they did better than they thought.

The only way to really know what a school’s number are is to be very specific. Ask are the middle 50% numbers for class of 2020 or 2021; are they for admitted or enrolled; are they actual numbers or are they “concorded?” All of the more competitive schools that I have reviewed which have current data appear to have new SAT scores which are lower than the old SAT. The best comparison I’ve been able to make is to take their 2015-16 (pre new SAT) scores. That is pretty close to where the new SAT scores come in. An easy way to see is to look at Stanford and Princeton and compare to Bowdoin and Wesleyan. Here are the links.

https://admission.princeton.edu/how-apply/admission-statistics
http://admission.stanford.edu/apply/selection/profile.html
http://www.bowdoin.edu/admissions/glance/index.shtml
http://wesleyan.edu/admission/apply/classprofile.html

If you compare Wes and Bowdoin’s middle 50 to Stanford and Princeton’s there is no question that they are using the faulty concorded numbers. Otherwise they are way more selective than Stanford and Princeton. I don’t think so.

If anyone is finding anything different, please share.

@KennyT

With regard to Bowdoin, I do see some funny business.

From the 2016-2017 CDS which is class of 2020, they report these #'s for SAT mid -50 (enrolled students)
CR 650-750
M 640-760
W 650-760

Yet - when the 2020 class profile (enrolled students) was up on their website (2021 is up now) the numbers were higher
CR 710-770
M 690-770
W 690-770

Can’t figure out why, but the website #'s seem too high

Both Bowdoin and Wesleyan are test-optional schools. Therefore, any of their applicants who perceived his or her SAT/ACT score to be low did not report that score. That caused the percentiles for those schools to be higher, since they are based only on submitted scores.

The CollegeBoard concordance table essentially provided a self-fulfilling prophecy, since it gave the students some assessment (although it’s apparently an erroneous one) of how good their score was and therefore whether to report it. In other words, students probably reported their new SAT scores only if the concordance table indicated they were high.