@JBStillFlying I hope so…but it’s not easy to find the concordance on the CB website and, once I found it, it says nothing at all about a new one coming out.
If anyone finds the new table, please post the link. Thanks! Watch it be exactly the same…
Here it is folks:
https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/ACT-SAT-Concordance-Tables.pdf
https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores/act-sat-concordance.html
As predicted, SAT scores dropped vs ACT.
Example
old concordance 34 = 1520 to 1550
old concordance 30 = 1400 to 1410
New concordance 34 = 1490 to 1520
New concordance 30 = 1360 to 1380
This is exactly what we expected. Another example of what a lousy job CB did during the release of the new SAT.
They didn’t even go back to the “old” table though!! 
Disapointed because there was clearly a big distortion the higher you went.
@JBStillFlying Thank you for the link. The projections are right in line with what most of us expected. I am glad that everything is fixed for future classes, but I am sure some students from the classes of 2017 and 2018 are salty. The schools saw the same problems with the concordance early and would have adjusted, but some of us parents may have advised our children wrong based off of the initial faulty numbers.
Am I right in assuming that this indicates that the new SAT is harder not that the ACT got easier? Also, will these numbers hold until they redesign the tests? How can they be sure, test by test, over different test dates what any of it means?
I wish we had data on ACT and SAT ranges for this past cycle. Its frustrating having a rising senior with such poor data.
@gallentjill what redesign?
Rising seniors have alot more to work with than Class of 17 did! This proves it.
The SAT is harder than they initially tested for. The problem is the PSAT for class of 2017 (10/2015) was too easy and they based the inital concordance off of those scores and some other sampling they did earlier. They must have tightened up the test after that so the concordance was off.
I still recommend that if your child is equally well on both tests to focus on the ACT since it has consistent scoring over the years.
@gallentjill My own interpretation is not that the New SAT is harder, or that the ACT is now easier, but that the initial comparison between the two was faulty, possibly due to a small sample size and not bringing the ACT in on the initial concordance. With both the ACT and SAT creating this concordance together, I would expect this to hold until one of the tests make an update or something starts to look out of whack (like the common data sets at schools over the last 2 years).
Wow. Makes me wonder if that means the PSAT got harder too. And if the NMSF cut offs will remain the same or even drop.
@suzyQ7 I was referring to the fact that SAT resigned the test – the new SAT. I wonder how good they are about keeping things consistent from test to test. How confident can they be that the June test has the same difficult as the October test for example, or that next years tests will fall in the same range as this years tests.
@homerdog i don’t think anything has changed with the difficulty (as mentioned by @ChangeTheGame) it’s that the concordance was WRONG in 2016. Alot of people had noticed this right from the beginning- that the concordance made no sense based on the actual results of real Sats taken. My own child scored a 35 in February, then a 1480 on the new SAT. There was less prep on SAT, but based on the amazing PSAT Scored earlier, we were expecting a 1500+ which would have been closer to ACT and PSAT, but no. Concordance at the time said 1480 was a 32 and now it says 33 - almost 34. Which makes more sense.
My son found the tests to be about equivalent in difficulty. In the fall, he had a 1480 SAT and a 34 ACT, but his raw score was just 1.5% higher on the ACT. So having it be equivalent to a 1490 makes perfect sense (he had a 33.5).
It looks like he can still submit just the ACT score to colleges, as planned, since he didn’t want to retake either test.
The CB concordance was based off a pilot group of about 5,000 students. This is based off of 600,000 students who actually took both tests. More chance to get the accuracy right at the tails.
If you go through some of the posts from two years ago, you’ll find lots of people who firmly believed that the discrepancy in the concordance table between old/new SAT and actual test results was due to a testing population difference…that all the “smart” class of 2017 kids followed expert advice and took the old SAT and everybody else took the new SAT…resulting in lower scores for the new SAT. I hope those people are looking at these current tables and eating some crow.
I’ll confess to just a touch of salt, maybe enough for the rim of a margarita glass. 
S is class of 2018, and his 1490 left him scraping the bottom of the barrel for a couple of top scholarships at places like UT Dallas (McDermott) and Tulane. He’d already fallen in love with U New Mexico, and he refused to do any retakes to bump his score up over 1500.
He ultimately decided not to apply to those two, and his decision to to retake the SAT was part of it. He’s NMF, so he’d have gotten a full ride at UTD (McDermott is full ride plus), but my guess is that he wouldn’t have gotten full tuition at Tulane since those seemed to go to applicants with 1500 or higher, and he wouldn’t have been in the running for their Stamps.
In the end, he’s delighted with his choice of schools, and has no regrets. Me, well, there’s just a touch of coulda woulda shoulda. Not much though. Everything worked out in the end.
Anyhow, glad to see the adjustment made. I, too, thought things were off in the top register.
Data point: This year’s McDermott required a 33 ACT or 1490 SAT to apply, so 1490 just barely makes it. I bet they’ll adjust the numbers for next year.
@suzyQ7 I’m not sure I agree with recommending ACT over the New SAT if you do about the same on both. In fact, I think the exact opposite. One of the points made on this thread and others is that it seems much more common to hear about 34s, 35s, and 36s than to hear about 1480+ scores. In the end, it probably doesn’t make much of a difference but I wonder if that 1480+ might stand out a bit more. This is of course not fact based, but I also think a 1500 would look better than a 35 just because we see so many more 35s.
I also want to cut the CB a little slack here. I feel like this is such a difficult thing to get right. And for what it’s worth, I see a lot more swings in ACT scores than I do SAT scores which implies to me that the SAT is more consistent than the ACT. I have seen students get a 26 on Science and jump to a 32 on Science without notable increased studying. I just feel like the ACT is more all over the place (which can be a good thing I guess for schools that superscore it, but they all don’t and some do superscore SAT and not ACT). I think SAT gets the credit for being more consistent. Yes they got the first concordance wrong, but now with more data it seems like they are making things more accurate.
My daughter was one of the class of 2017 that took the old and did very well and I have no regrets. I do think it may have helped her in the end to have taken the old because the kids that took the new had a hard time with it. My daughter had a 1540 OLD which was like a 1560 new, I think…but now we know it probably really wasn’t. HOWEVER I do seem to remember seeing some stats her year that suggested that some colleges already adjusted back then for the incorrect concordance because I am pretty sure I noticed some of the NEW SAT scores for accepted students reported her year were indeed LOWER than the OLD SAT scores for the accepted students. I forget where I saw that but I’m pretty sure I did.
So maybe what was going on was that the admissions folks were trying to be as fair as possible and maybe only compared applicants (from a testing perspective only) to other applicants that took the same test. Not sure.
I do feel badly for anyone (classes of 17 and 18) that was in a situation where they missed a cutoff for a scholarship or something like that because the chart was off. Those are the real victims here. Or any kid that didn’t apply to a certain school because they thought their score was too low (but hopefully the 30 point ish difference wouldn’t have deterred them that much!).
My problem with CB is that the new test was rolled out before it was ready, including the data. My understanding is that the study to create a new concordance didn’t even start until fall 2017. It was reported in the Reuters and other news articles that there were quality control issues with the rollout, among other things, that now-former employees believed the new test was rolled out prematurely. And then CB fired ETS and then rehired ETS, though it seems ETS does not actually write the new test.
@gallentjill: the SAT hasn’t gotten harder. The concordance has always been off, due to the faulty sample they used to establish the first scale. Kids from Spring 2016 to Spring 2018 had their achievement minored because of it.
I feel somewhat vindicated by this because I’ve disagreed with college guidance counselors and my daughter’s SAT prep tutor. Both were adamant that the New SAT scores were inflated and would be “curved down” relative to the ACT and Old SAT.
It was glaringly obvious to me after the Class of 2021 results started getting posted that AO realized there was something wrong and disregarded the Concordance Tables.
It seems like minutia to most but when it comes to direct admits and scholarships or in our case what the SAT tutor would “warranty” it matters.
The SAT tutor guaranteed a certain improvement in score based on the number of private tutoring hours or he would provide free tutoring for a follow up test. Because of the concordance and anticipated “easier” SAT, he tried to decrease the amount of improvement necessary for his guarantee. I presented my numbers and argument and he disregarded it. My daughter’s improvement greatly exceeded his guarantee so it was moot but it seemed like a convenient way for him to avoid free follow up.