Sometime recently, the NCES searchable website was updated with the 2017-2018 CDS data (for those who are now rising college sophomores). As seniors work on their lists for this fall, perhaps it’s time for a reminder that, for some schools, this class of 2021 data may be a smitch off due to the concordance requirement inflating old scores in the 17-18 CDS.
For UPenn, here are the New-only scores posted in the 2021 profile vs what is reported in 17-18 CDS/IPEDS:
New: EBRW 680-750, Math 690-770
CDS: EBRW 700-770, Math 720-790
Princeton:
New: EBRW 680-760, Math 700-780
CDS: EBRW 710-780, Math 720-790
Vanderbilt
New: EBRW 700-760, Math 700-790
CDS: EBRW 710-770, Math 730-800
Boston College
New: EBRW 650-720, Math 650-740
CDS: EBRW 660-760, Math 660-730
I can’t remember which other schools explicitly posted New scores by themselves for 2021. This may not matter for most applicants, but those with a section score on the low side may want to look carefully for 2022 data when it is finally posted.
The CDS data is for enrolled, not just admitted, students, correct? Is Penn, Princeton etc. reporting enrolled stats or admitted stats on their websites? If the latter, that could also account for some of the difference.
^Yes, CDS is for enrolled. But, you are correct about the Penn class profile data being for admitted students, sorry I missed that - isn’t it weird, though, that the enrolled data would be higher than for admitted (makes me wonder whether that footnote is accurate). The Princeton, Vandy and BC class profiles are for enrolled.
^^Well, since BC is a backup to ND and others you’d expect enrolled stats to be lower than admitted even if they are reporting from the same data set and not doing funky things to the numbers.
For the rest - yeah it’s weird if enrolled stats as reported on the college website aren’t matching their own CDS numbers - perhaps CDS requires that they use the Concordance tables to convert some old SAT scores? Or perhaps there are timing differences - ie the college website data is prior to summer melt, the CDS data is later on? Not sure why that would mean HIGHER numbers but just a thought. Assuming Penn’s discrepancy is due to whatever is affecting the others.
Yes exactly, that was what I was trying to demonstrate, that the 17-18 CDS is less accurate due to the concordance requirement and yet it is now the most recent data in the NCES website; i.e., the IPEDS data at NCES or in the CDS is a little misleading.
(The BC interesting thing was merely the averages, 1366 and 32, because on the old table, 1360 would be 29. But we’ll see what happens next week with the new concordance table)
This is great info, thanks so much. @evergreen5 very interesting in the BC average SAT being equal to a 29 and the ACT average being a 32. Those are the things I have been noticing that make me believe the tables are off (which no one is disagreeing with), but that is REALLY off.
I think some of the missing links here might be the fact that the class of 2021 (my daughter’s class) was truly a mix of old and new SAT takers. I also think that the more competitive the school (let’s say the two ivies are the most competitive of those you listed and BC is the least, but they are all competitive nonetheless) not higher the percentage of applicants that submitted OLD SAT scores. Here in NJ, a lot of the kids at the top of their class (2021 kids, overachieving) scrambled to make sure they got that old SAT in. The kids that might have been more relaxed about it, too the new SAT and being there were not tests to study from, they kind of went in cold. I would have to think this somehow impacts that numbers.
^Not many schools provide the breakdown in number of applicants between Old and New. One that comes to mind is Vassar - of the enrolled class of 2021, 130 submitted Old SAT, 263 submitted New SAT, and 351 submitted ACT.
So what @SoxDog posted supports the theory that the old tables are off, favoring the ACT. Here’s the concordance I found on-line for ACT with New SAT for the above scores. The number in parenthesis is the number @Soxdog found based on percentiles:
Tufts median numbers this year might shed a lot of light on this because they didn’t round their ACT numbers. Their admitted class is 1467 and 32.9. Which reminded me that the ACT rounds up AND down, so using the Tufts numbers the following assumption is true
1449 - 1489 is the same as a 33 because that is equivalent the range of 32.5 - 33.4
And this assumption is supported by the following schools class of ‘22 numbers:
Hamilton 1462/33
Haverford 1490/34
Wellesley 1438/32
As I mentioned before, I feel this is more school by school, but based on this I feel the chart could look more like
1534 - 1494 = 34
1489 - 1449 = 33
1445 - 1404 = 32
1400 - 1360 = 31
So, I’m thinking there’s potentially an additional 20 to 30 points from the prep scholar extrapolation at certain schools. You can also find certain schools that value one test over the other and this is an extremely small sample size. But if you are applying to small, competitive Northeastern liberal arts colleges there is definitely some fire with this smoke.
Here is another guess of the concordance tables. I looked up auto merit at a handful of schools (Miami Ohio, U of Louisville, UAH and U of Alabama). What they had as floors for the different level of scholarships:
34 1520
33 1480 or 1490
32 1450
30 1390
29 1350
28 1310
27 1280
26. 1240
25. 1200
24. 1160
The lower end only represents u of l. Interesting that the schools did not use the published concordance tables, but they were similar in what they used. Love to compare with even more university systems
I guess I will throw in my 2 cents about where the projections will fall (And it really is worth about 2 cents max). The concordance has always looked like a better correlation once you get down to about 28 or below on the ACT and the very top has looked off to me like most on this thread have pointed out, but we will see on Thursday won’t we…
Hi everyone. Please help me not to misread this discussion. My daughter currently has a 34 ACT. We have been assuming it correlates to between 1490-1530. If the table shows that it actually correlates lower as @ChangeTheGame suggests, does that mean it will be less impressive for the very top programs she is interested in? She is currently leaning towards a retake hoping she can get the couple of points she needs to get to 35. I would like this testing to finally be over.
@gallentjill I would say the concordance doesn’t really matter for her. What matters is where her 34 sits relative to the schools she is applying for. Does 34 put her in the 75th percentile for her target school based on last year’s ACT data? If it does, then you have your answer - no need to retake. The concordance with the SAT won’t change that.
@gallentjill I would tell you to wait until the numbers come out on Thursday before worrying because the methodology that I used (looking at common data sets across many schools and through this forum) and what College Board and ACT are doing are not the same. And I believe a 34 is impressive for the top schools, but I understand how the competition for top schools puts everything under the microscope. @bucketDad is right that the 75 percentile or higher for the target school is more important than this concordance update.
I personally found upsetting the old sat to new sat concordance. So lets say you score 1440 which is in the 50% of a school but then the concordance tells you “wait” you have to subtract 50 points so your 1440 is what 1390 used to be. So here you are now almost off the 50% of the school you were looking at. I did not think anything above 1500 would be a problem but for the students around 1400 I found it a bit hard to predict where they stand. I will not be surprised if some of those students got bypassed for ACTs in the 32 range since we know what a 32 is but not sure what a 1400+ is. Also not surprised if students in this range also took the ACT and decided to send the ACT instead. Of course now that the Common Data Sets will have the new SAT ranges I think this uncertainty will be lifted.