<p>^^ Right. Lots of boys are very strong on Math, not so much on CR. As a group, girls are pretty evenly balanced between M and CR (though certainly many individuals are unbalanced in one direction or the other). I guess that’s why we have engineering schools, to sop up all those excess male 750+ SAT Math scores.</p>
<p>With the Xiggi prep method, everybody gets 800s. And then no one gets into college because the colleges can’t distinguish among all the applicants.</p>
<p>xiggi-
Thanks for the link to the SAT statistics.</p>
<p>bclintonk-
Based on the assumption that the SAT CR and math are normally distributed, and if I did the calculation correctly, the SAT math would be expected to yield about 17,000 more scores above 700 than the SAT CR because the mean for math is 13 points higher than the mean for CR. The standard deviations are about 114. This accounts for a lot of the difference in high scorers between math and CR.</p>
<p>But, actually I do not disagree that both math and CR are important. I am simply saying that math skills are scarcer and that non-English-speaking internationals tend to struggle with CR. That’s why I would prefer the math SAT if I were to choose one indicator.</p>
<p>Of course, we don’t have to choose one indicator. But, math SATs are a good “rule-of-thumb”. Math and CR together are better, but with the caveat that CR goes down as international students go up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Humm, I think that there are PLENTY of girls in the listing of SAT Math 75th percentile schools. </p>
<p>rank, math SAT 25th percentile, math SAT 75th percentile, school
1 770 800 California Institute of Technology
2 740 800 Harvey Mudd College
3 720 800 Cornell Engineering
4 720 800 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
5 700 790 Princeton University
6 700 790 Yale University
7 700 780 Harvard University
8 700 780 Washington University in St Louis
9 690 785 Cornell A&S and Engineering
10 690 780 Pomona College
11 680 790 Duke University
12 680 780 Stanford University
13 680 780 University of Pennsylvania
14 680 770 Northwestern University
15 680 760 Vanderbilt University
16 670 780 Brown University
17 670 780 Carnegie Mellon University
18 670 780 Columbia University in the City of New York
19 670 780 Dartmouth College
20 670 780 Rice University
21 670 770 Cornell University
22 670 760 Swarthmore College
23 670 760 University of Notre Dame
24 670 750 Tufts University
25 660 770 Johns Hopkins University
26 660 760 Amherst College
27 660 760 Williams College
28 660 740 Emory University
29 660 740 Washington and Lee University
30 650 760 University of Chicago
31 650 750 Bowdoin College
32 650 750 Claremont McKenna College
33 650 750 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
34 650 750 University of Southern California</p>
<p>And probably more than a few boys (and girls) in the CR listing</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard 700-800</li>
<li>Yale 700-800</li>
<li>Princeton 690-790</li>
<li>Caltech 700-780</li>
<li>Chicago 670-770</li>
<li>Dartmouth 660-770</li>
<li>Columbia 680-760</li>
<li>Stanford 660-760</li>
<li>MIT 660-760</li>
<li>Brown 660-760</li>
<li>WUSTL 680-750</li>
<li>Northwestern 670-750</li>
<li>Duke 660-750</li>
<li>Penn 650-750</li>
<li>Georgetown 650-750</li>
<li>Rice 640-750</li>
<li><p>Notre Dame 640-750</p></li>
<li><p>Swarthmore 680-780</p></li>
<li><p>Pomona 690-770</p></li>
<li><p>Amherst 670-770</p></li>
<li><p>Harvey Mudd 690-760</p></li>
<li><p>Williams 670-760</p></li>
<li><p>Wellesley 660-750</p></li>
<li><p>Vassar 660-750</p></li>
<li><p>Middlebury 650-750</p></li>
<li><p>Carleton 650-750</p></li>
<li><p>Haverford 650-750</p></li>
<li><p>Claremont-McKenna 650-750</p></li>
<li><p>Wesleyan 650-750</p></li>
<li><p>Oberlin 650-750</p></li>
<li><p>Grinnell 610-750</p></li>
</ol>
<p>From [News:</a> The Best University? - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/09/clemson]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/09/clemson)</p>
<p>The Best University? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No 5, ONE 4, 18 good (3’s), 94 adequate (2’s), 126 marginal, and 21 don’t know. </p>
<p>PS Notice the left side of the article … a link to More Rankings Rigging </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/08/usc[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/08/usc</a></p>
<p>It’s about time!</p>
<p>The additional rigging articles indicate not only PA cheating but also in the more objective measures such as NA members. Given this info, I wouldn’t be surprised if the some universities fudged GPAs, top 10% of the HS class, and even average SAT scores to artificially inflate their rank.</p>
<p>Sigh. You gotta love a society where cheating rules.</p>
<p>Oh brother…this is much to do about NOTHING.</p>
<p>He’s an academic…the survey asked for his OPINION and he gave his OPINION.</p>
<p>I disagree. He knew exactly what he was doing. </p>
<p>I doubt the presidents of unis near the top do this – they don’t need to boost their rankings because they are already there.</p>
<p>Well it’s likely his survey was one of the ones discarded by USNWR for too low of scores (and too high of a score for his own school)…so it doesn’t matter.</p>
<p>He only gave his school a 4, which would avoid that issue. A lot of the "marginal"s were probably the lowest score a school received and would be thrown out. But those 94 “adequate” rankings will probably stick. </p>
<p>From the comments section of the news site:
</p>
<p>I wonder if he would still give it a three or less.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely right. There are plenty of girls with 750+ SAT Math scores—about as many as there are girls with 750+ CR scores, and about as many as there are boys with 750+ CR scores. But there are twice as many boys with 750+ Math scores as there are any of these categories. Which is why I find the conclusion pretty much irrefutable that 750 + Math scores are far more common than 750 + CR scores.</p>
<p>2008 College Bound seniors</p>
<p>Score Range / Male / Female / Total</p>
<p>750-800 CR / 12,407 / 12,160 / 24,569
750-800 M / 26,610 / 13,854 / 40,466</p>
<p>Actually, even among girls there are nearly 1700 more 750+ Math scorers than 750+ CR scorers. It’s tempting to say that, comparatively speaking, 750 + Math scores are “a dime a dozen,” though that would be hyperbole. But it’s plain they’re far more common than 750 + CR scores, that’s all. And except for engineering schools which are after the high math scores and in many cases may not care so much about CR, it’s hard to see why colleges and universities seeking to attract the best students wouldn’t place a premium on top CR scores which are a scarcer commodity from their perspective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m having a little trouble grasping your point. In what sense are math skills “scarcer”? It’s certainly not reflected in the SAT scores—top SAT M scores are far more abundant, And your point that many Math-skilled international students struggle with CR seems to directly contradict your point about relative scarcity. I think statistically internationals make up too small a fraction of the total pool of SAT-takers to account for much of the disparity in the numbers of 750 + M and 750 + CR scores. But to the extent the kinds of CR-challenged. M-savvy students you describe do make up any sizable fraction of the applicant pool, it seems they would only contribute to the relative scarcity of high CR skills and relative abundance of M skills.</p>
<p>Unless you’re referring to “scarcity” relative to some posited level of demand for such skills. In engineering schools and in the sciences it’s no doubt true that Math skills are more highly prized and more in demand than CR, and perhaps the supply coming out of the high schools can’t keep up with the demand at the college level. It may also be true that in the professions, the demand for Math-capable college graduates outstrips the supply. But in the humanities, strong Math skills don’t do much good (except perhaps in certain technical areas of philosophy, e.g., logic and philosophy of science). Ask anyone who’s taught a serious college-level literature, philosophy, or history course; there’s a real scarcity of kids with the high CR skills to do this work at a high level. It’s simply not the case that anyone who can speak English relatively competently is capable of doing serious work in the humanities at the college or graduate level; very few can. There may not be as much demand for them in the job market after they graduate, so in that sense, you may be right that people with high CR skills are not “scarce” relative to societal or market demand. But the SAT scores suggest that in absolute numbers there are simply fewer people with top-level CR skills than with top-level Math skills. Of course, it could be the way the test is scaled, so that SAT CR is simply more discriminating at the top levels than is SAT M. But be that as it may, it’s still hard to see why there wouldn’t be a more intense competition among (non-technical) elite schools for the smaller number of applicants with top CR scores than for the more numerous (and on this latter hypothesis less informative, because less discriminating) top M scores.</p>
<p>
People have been asking why the mean on the SAT Math is so high. One thing to consider is that there is already a really terrible curve. On some test dates, missing one question will get you a 770. The Collegeboard would have to put some AMC12 style questions to be able to tell the best students apart with any precision, which would be lost on 95% of test-takers. On the other hand, anyone can get an ambiguous critical reading question wrong - and everybody has a chance of figuring out the right answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And now, the entire realm of parties interested in the value and integrity of the PA can evaluate what the “opinion” of an expert is *really *worth. </p>
<p>He gave the justification of his scores … and this gave a clear picture of the utter absence of any guidelines by the USNews. Again, respondents can use whatever they want as criteria. About his scores, the fact he gave no 5’s, the only 4 to Clemson, and a few 3’s speaks volumes about the validity of the opinion of an “expert.”</p>
<p>Either he does not know what he is talking about, or he is brutally dishonest. In the end, it makes little difference. The result is the same!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find this characterization of the CR test amusing. Spoken like a true math jock. Truth is, there are definite right and wrong answers to virtually all the questions on both the SAT CR and SAT II Lit tests, though the rightness and wrongness of some answers may not be clear to many test-takers who will consequently see the questions themselves as “ambiguous.” But test-takers with top CR skills will get almost all the answers right on a consistent basis. Sure, anyone can misread or misinterpret a difficult text. This is especially true on SAT II Lit where the texts are much harder, but those with the strongest skills in this area tend to make very few mistakes. And anyone can guess at the right answers, or work out some right answers by careful reading and reasoning. But if you guess a lot, you won’t get the right answers consistently. </p>
<p>I think there’s a tendency among some of the math-centric to dismiss or devalue CR skills as something commonplace, or even not real; not “hard” like math, not “objective” like math, not reflecting real academic accomplishment. That’s simply erroneous. Top-level CR skills are in fact quite rare. The SAT II Lit test is, statistically speaking, the hardest test on which to achieve a top score, and for good reason; not many of us are very good at reading and interpreting difficult texts, a skill that takes not only a great deal of native talent but also years of cultivation through diligent pursuit of challenging reading—something very few people have the time of day for. But to my mind, this is as important an academic skill as math or science, and the foundation of a range of academic disciplines that in many respects stand among the highest achievements in human thought and learning.</p>
<p>Why are university presidents allowed to assess their own institutions?</p>
<p>Bclintonk, I agree with your assessment of CR skills – up to a point. My undergraduate English students often lack an ability to interpret. If a writer reveals something through intimation, rather than overtly stating it, most students simply cannot make that leap between the literal presence of the words on the pages and what they really mean. They don’t get the subtleties of the language – how a metaphor reveals the author’s stance, for example. The students who have the critical thinking skills to interpret texts (rather just merely read them) is rare indeed. But I would also say the ability to think in abstract mathematics is equally rare. But the SAT does not test upper-level mathematics ability. The CR section tests students at the college level while the M section tests them at the high school level.</p>
<p>I was excited when the SAT included a writing portion because I hoped (erroneously, it turned out) that universities would look to that as evidence of the level of critical thought. Unfortunately, the result of that section is the formula essay. If a freshman is asked to write a five page essay, it often contains five paragraphs: introduction, examples one through three, and conclusion.</p>
<p>xiggi, </p>
<p>Do you really think a whole set of guidelines issued by USNWR are going to be followed or change opinion?</p>
<p>
My guess is that this whole survey is done on the cheap. It would be too expensive to customize forms/mailings for each university. </p>
<p>However, the analysts could throw out the scores related to the respondents respective university.</p>
<p>
I got the same score on CR and Math. Ask anyone who took the March SAT about the “writer” passage (would it be against the rules to say which question?). I sat there for a few minutes after finishing the rest of section, and proved all five answers wrong with the text, then eventually tried to pick the one that was proven wrong most indirectly. Many others did the same thing. If you posted the passage and question online, there would be endless debate as to what the correct answer was. The curve appropriately let you miss a point and still get an 800. The Collegeboard will usually give you a flawless score on CR if you miss a few questions. On math, you miss one and lose 10-30 points (with exceptions in the rare case of an ambiguous question that everyone misses).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. I think it is a GOOD thing that it is possible to give a test that can tell the difference between a huge range of talent, with the ability to read as the only qualification. I don’t think that it is possible to do that with math.</p>
<p>bclintonk-
According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 35% of 12th graders were considered “Proficient” in reading in 2005 but only 23% were considered “Proficient” in math.</p>
<p><a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2005/2007468_2.pdf[/url]”>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2005/2007468_2.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2005/2007468_3.pdf[/url]”>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2005/2007468_3.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/[/url]”>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/</a></p>
<p>^ Well, that’s a different story, collegehelp. You’re talking about testing for basic “proficiency” at the bottom end of the scale. I’d consider both of these figures appallingly low; I’d say it shows a grave scarcity of BOTH math and reading skills among 12th graders, though I’ll grant you, somewhat greater in math. </p>
<p>But we started out talking not about basic “proficiency” but about a higher level of skills, the kinds of high-level (750+ CR and/or M) skills that might get you into the top colleges and universities, and that might allow you to do high quality work there. At that level, top Math scores are quite a bit more abundant than top CD scores.</p>