<p>Also, are the math and english sections more important than the other two sections? because on collegeboard.com when it gives the ACT stats, it gives the composite, math, and english, that's it. </p>
<p>thanks</p>
<p>31 act is 2050 sat.</p>
<p>Well, if it helps at all, I got a 29 on the ACT and a 2190 on the SAT, so a 31 would proportionally equate to around a 2340.</p>
<p>31 SAT is DEFINITELY not a 2340.</p>
<p>lol definitely not a 2340, I'd say anywhere from 2040 to 2100 is roughly a 31.</p>
<p>^ Hm, that must mean I did exceptionally poorly on my ACT. :(</p>
<p>Well, a 29 on the ACT put me in the 95 percentile, and a 2190 on the SAT put me in the 97 percentile, so I guess that means a 31 on the ACT would put you in the 96th or 97th percentile, which would, given my scores, equate to at least a 2190 on the SAT...</p>
<p>what's it out of 1600?</p>
<p>First off, according to your logic in your first post, my 36 on the ACT should equate to about a 2720 on the SAT. Good job on the math there.</p>
<p>Secondly, 2190 is just shy of the 99th percentile. Its not 97th.</p>
<p>Last off, you cannot compare 2 different tests which have different groups taking them. The SAT is much stronger in the east where the better schools are located. Therefore scoring in the higher percentiles is much harder than on the ACT.</p>
<p>"which would, given my scores, equate to at least a 2190 on the SAT..."
If percentiles are being compared, a 31 would equal a 2140-2190. Not "at least" a 2190.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Secondly, 2190 is just shy of the 99th percentile. Its not 97th.
[/quote]
I ranked the 98, 98, and 95th percentiles, which cumulatively round to a 97 percentile. I'm assuming all three subsections are weighed evenly. I can't imagine why my cumulative score would exceed the average of my three sub-scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"which would, given my scores, equate to at least a 2190 on the SAT..."
If percentiles are being compared, a 31 would equal a 2140-2190. Not "at least" a 2190.
[/quote]
If a 29 ranks in the 95th percentile, then a score of 31 should rank at least in the 96th or 97th percentiles, which, again, given my proportion of scores (and I don't think I grew exceptionally smarter or dumber in between taking the two tests), is around a 2190.</p>
<p>Threadstarter, to find out what a score out of 2400 would be out of 1600, just divide it by 2400 and multiply it by 1600. ;)</p>
<p>Well, a 29 on the ACT put me in the 95 percentile, and a 2190 on the SAT put me in the 97 percentile, so I guess that means a 31 on the ACT would put you in the 96th or 97th percentile, which would, given my scores, equate to at least a 2190 on the SAT...</p>
<p>my god, if you got a 2190 on the sat then my idiot brother could get a 2400</p>
<p>Not circular, but rather, deductive.</p>
<p>I'm of course not claiming it to be fact. But I figure the threadstarter wants a decent "ballpark" perspective.</p>
<p>"I ranked the 98, 98, and 95th percentiles, which cumulatively round to a 97 percentile. I'm assuming all three subsections are weighed evenly. I can't imagine why my cumulative score would exceed the average of my three sub-scores."</p>
<p>Wow... Maybe you need to learn to reason things out a bit before you start posting. The overall percentile is always higher if you do above average on all the sections.</p>
<p>The percentiles for individual sections is usually lower because of the people that excel on that one section, but do not do well on the others. Those people would win on the percentiles for, say english, but then lose on the overall one. There are far more people like that than there are people who excel in everything. If someone scores in the top 2% on each section, whats the chances of finding someone else who beat him in ALL 3 sections? There is a 2% chance of finding someone who is better than him on each individual section, but a much lower chance of finding someone who beats him in all 3.</p>
<p>"decent ballpark perspective"
lmao
2340...
decent...
lmao</p>
<p>"If a 29 ranks in the 95th percentile, then a score of 31 should rank at least in the 96th or 97th percentiles, which, again, given my proportion of scores (and I don't think I grew exceptionally smarter or dumber in between taking the two tests), is around a 2190."</p>
<p>When did "at least" and "about" come to mean the same thing? I didn't get that memo apparently.</p>
<p>Alright give me a hand with your logic here. A 29 is 95%. A 31 is therefore 97%. So by extension of your logic a 33 is around 99% and a 36 is around 102%. I didn't know that I did better than 102% of people who took the ACT. I knew I was great and all, but I didn't know I was THAT good.</p>
<p>SAT-ACT</a> Conversion chart</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow... Maybe you need to learn to reason things out a bit before you start posting. The overall percentile is always higher if you do above average on all the sections.</p>
<p>The percentiles for individual sections is usually lower because of the people that excel on that one section, but do not do well on the others. Those people would win on the percentiles for, say english, but then lose on the overall one. There are far more people like that than there are people who excel in everything. If someone scores in the top 2% on each section, whats the chances of finding someone else who beat him in ALL 3 sections? There is a 2% chance of finding someone who is better than him on each individual section, but a much lower chance of finding someone who beats him in all 3.
[/quote]
I must admit, I never thought of it like that. I suppose I assumed that someone who does well on one test is likely to do well on the others, but it does make sense that reading/writing/mathematical abilities aren't quite so uniform.</p>
<p>So I guess that means higher SAT scores are even rarer than I thought. o.O</p>
<p>And damn, all this time my resume said "97th percentile". I've been selling myself short. No wonder I can't get a job. [/kidding]</p>
<p>these are 100 PERCENT OFFICIAL</p>
<p>SAT-ACT</a> Concordance Tables
Estimated</a> Relationship between ACT Composite Score and SAT CR+M+W Score</p>
<p>
[quote]
"If a 29 ranks in the 95th percentile, then a score of 31 should rank at least in the 96th or 97th percentiles, which, again, given my proportion of scores (and I don't think I grew exceptionally smarter or dumber in between taking the two tests), is around a 2190."</p>
<p>When did "at least" and "about" come to mean the same thing? I didn't get that memo apparently.</p>
<p>Alright give me a hand with your logic here. A 29 is 95%. A 31 is therefore 97%. So by extension of your logic a 33 is around 99% and a 36 is around 102%. I didn't know that I did better than 102% of people who took the ACT. I knew I was great and all, but I didn't know I was THAT good.
[/quote]
Pal, no need for the hostility. My point was that it's presumably at <em>least</em> 96%, or maybe even 97% (considering the scores are likely scewed towards the bottom), and that a 97% on the SAT would be around 2190. It's as simple as that. Again, I'm just giving the threadstarter a "ballpark" estimate so he can get some perspective.</p>
<p>
[quote]
these are 100 PERCENT OFFICIAL</p>
<p>SAT-ACT Concordance Tables
Estimated Relationship between ACT Composite Score and SAT CR+M+W Score
[/quote]
Mmm, fair enough. I was off by about 120. I either did particularly well on the SAT or particularly poorly on the ACT. Maybe it's because I don't live in the Midwest. ^_^</p>
<p>dude a 2190 is 99 th percentile check official charts dude</p>