<p>Being that the PSAT has always included all 3 sections, shouldn't it be a pretty good estimate of new composite percentiles?</p>
<p>On the PSAT in october I got a 201 ---> 96th percentile.</p>
<p>On the new SAT in may I got a 2140... </p>
<p>A 214 on the PSAT was, correct me if i'm wrong, 98th percentile? </p>
<p>How accurate would it be, then, to assume that my composite will be 98th percentile?</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>Valikor2,</p>
<p>Conceptually a good thought however you should note that uptick in scores from the PSAT to the real SAT. You can see this at work in the thread started by Papa Chicken.</p>
<p>Not sure how to get a better estimate. Perhaps we can do some type of correlation using the results of PapaChicken's stats effort.</p>
<p>201? damn, that sucks. 202 is cutoff for commended.</p>
<p>ALso you have to remember that the scores from Papa Chicken are from kids with among the highest scores on the SAT's, its not a real representation of the score distribution.</p>
<hr>
<h2>201? damn, that sucks. 202 is cutoff for commended.</h2>
<p>Correct -- I almost **** a brick when the Commended cutoff was released.</p>
<p>Anyhow, I can only hope that willmingtonwave is correct... the percentage of people here who <em>prepared</em> for the SAT vs the national percentage of people who prepared is undoubtebly much higher. </p>
<p>Anyone else?</p>
<p>If it makes you feel any better, the commendation letter means jack sh-it. Ivy-league schools don't even care that much about national merit on the PSAT, although it is a "nice" distinction from other kids. I personally don't care that I didn't get either; My friend got a scholarship and said it was a royal pain in the ass to get the nominal $2000 scholarship. It also didn't help him as he was rejected from all but one Ivy league school to which he applied. (final SAT=1580 old)</p>
<p>It is probably not the best ibdicator, but I think it is possible. A 2140 is about a 1430 on the old, which is like 97th percentile</p>
<p>CORRECTION: 214 was 99th percentile last year.</p>
<p>The lowest 99th percentile score was 213.</p>
<p>A 2140 is not equivalent to a 1430 either. You CAN'T multiply scores by 2/3 to get your old SAT score. Because of the extra section, a 2140 is more like a 1450 and a 2200 is like a 1500. However, since the math/verbal are the sections that are essentially being counted this year, that's not completely accurate, either. As long as your writing score is not too low, your verbal and math scores are the ones that count.</p>
<p>I was just trying to figure out the percentile, not make a direct correlation and say a 2140 is automatically like a 1430.</p>
<p>what the fu ck is the perfect PSAT score?</p>
<p>Perfect PSAT: 240 (80 on each section)</p>
<hr>
<p>A 2140 is not equivalent to a 1430 either. You CAN'T multiply scores by 2/3 to get your old SAT score. Because of the extra section, a 2140 is more like a 1450 and a 2200 is like a 1500. However, since the math/verbal are the sections that are essentially being counted this year, that's not completely accurate, either. As long as your writing score is not too low, your verbal and math scores are the ones that count.</p>
<hr>
<p>I know that the math+Verbal will be most heavily weighted. On math+verbal I got a 1470. </p>
<p>However, for the sake of curiosity and personal pride, I still care about my overall composite percentile (ie, including my writing score, which was my lowest, at a 670)</p>
<p>Since the PSAT has all of the same sections as the SAT, equivalent scores (IE a 214 and 2140) <em>should</em> be very similar... If i'm not mistaken, there are really only two differences between the PSAT and the new SAT:</p>
<p>1) The PSAT is shorter
2) The PSAT doesn't have the essay -- only the writing MC</p>
<p>Besides the fact that people are more mature when taking the SAT, and that fact that some people prep, I don't see why it wouldn't be a relatively good indicator.</p>
<p>apparently the psat percentiles are not the best indicator of sat percentiles since more students take the sat's than psat's. this is what i heard from a friend.</p>
<p>I think it would be an equal indicator:
1) Harder math on the SAT's
2) the SAT's are longer</p>
<p>The percentiles seem very low. I mean, I highly doubt that only one percent of the SAT takers can score at least a 2130.</p>
<p>I don't think they necessarily correlate with each other. I got a 209 which if divided by 1.5 would be 13 something. However my percentile was 98%. If you check the percentiles for the old one. 13something is at best in the early 90s. Also the curve is crazy for PSAT. Even for the SAT you don't drop from 80 to 76 because of one problem, and from 76 to 73 because you got another one wrong.
For the CR section I got five wrong which would be in the 700s if it were the SATs even the new ones however I got a 690. So I don't think they have any relationship.</p>
<p>i agree, not much if any relationship. the tests themselves, timing, amount of people taking them, are different, so...</p>
<p>I think that for most ppl, their SAT score would be higher than their PSAT score because there are alot less questions on the PSAT and like imiracle911 said, the curve is awful. I missed 3 questions on the math section and got a 69 ;<em>; For most of my friends, their SAT score has been higher than their PSAT (some scored in the 180s and 190s on PSAT but over 2000 on the SAT)... as for me we'll see hopefully early this morning when CB gets scores up ></em><</p>
<p>I got a 209 PSAT.</p>
<p>But last year my SAT was quite lower than my PSAT.
dunno why...</p>