Why are people so adamant about getting 800s?

[xcatastrophex]

<p>SAT subject tests- Is there something special about 800s? Is it just me who thinks that a 780 is superb, as well? Why do people get so upset upon receiving a 790? I don't know much about SAT subject tests... do schools only give credit if you get an 800?</p>

[engadget]

<p>Some tests have huge curves, which make a 790 look much worse than an 800. Take Math II, for example. Ten percent of all of the people that take it get perfect scores.</p>

[xcatastrophex]

<p>sorry-I don’t understand really how the subject tests are scored. How do they “curve” the subject tests?</p>

[xrCalico23]

<p>No, there’s nothing extra special about a 800 other than it’s a perfect score and 20 points higher than a 780. I personally think they’re equally good, but then, I’m not an admission officer :P.</p>

<p>The curve relates to how the raw scores are converted to the final SAT scores on a 800-point scale. For mathII and physics and US history, for instance, you can get at least ten problems wrong and still get a 800, which means you must have gotten many problems wrong to have missed the perfect score (I think that’s what engadget was referring to). On the other hand, I only got a 800 on one of my SATIIs out of four (math), but I got into a lot of colleges just fine.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>To be quite frank, a score of 780 on an exam with a difficult curve is excellent, as it usually indicates that you only got one or two questions wrong. </p>

<p>If you’d like a little bit more information on curves, try visiting [url=<a href=“SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular Study Guides”>SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular Study Guides]this[/url</a>] website. I found it very helpful when learning about how to approach my SAT II exams.</p>

<p>From the article:</p>

<p>

The scaled score takes the raw score and uses a formula to place it onto the standard SAT II scale of 200 to 800. The curve to convert raw scores to scaled scores differs from test to test. For example, a raw score of 33 on the Math IC will scale to a 600 while the same raw score of 33 on the Math IIC will scale to a 700. In fact, the scaled score can even vary on different editions of the same test. A raw score of 33 on the February 2002 Math IIC might scale to a 710 while a 33 in June 2002 might scale to a 690. These differences in scaled scores exist to accommodate for differences in difficultly level and student performance. The difference in the curve for various versions of the same test will not vary by more than 20 points or so.

</p>

[xcatastrophex]

<p>thank you so much ksarmand!</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>^Any time, xcatastrophex. Glad to be of some use. :)</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>Check out the percentiles to get a better idea – just remember that there is some self-selection.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>^Silverturtle is entirely right. Scoring a 700 on the Math II exam, for instance, is actually not good at all, since you’re in the 63rd percentile (like I was :(). Conversely, a 700 on Literature is in a much higher percentile. I do believe that information can be found from the link I gave you.</p>

[leafblade1354]

<p>

For mathII and physics and US history, for instance, you can get at least ten problems wrong and still get a 800,

Math II, I’m pretty sure you have to get them all right. Or else, 10% of the test-takers wouldn’t get 800’s.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

Math II, I’m pretty sure you have to get them all right.

</p>

<p>You do not have to get every problem right on the Math II exam to score an 800. 10% of test takers get scores of 800 because the curve is extremely generous.</p>

<p>[url=<a href="SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular Study Guides a link.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>One can usually miss at least five on Math Level 2 for an 800; the necessary raw score is typically 43/50 or 44/50.</p>

<p>Percentiles: <a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/SAT-Subject-Test-Percentile-Ranks-2009.pdf[/url]”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board;

[silverturtle]

<p>

10% of test takers get scores of 800 because the curve is extremely generous.

</p>

<p>Indeed. Despite the fact that roughly ten times as many people take the SAT Reasoning Test than take the Math Level 2 Subject Test, there are about 50% more 800s on the Subject Test. This is a good reason that an 800 on the Subject Test does not “compensate” for sub-800 on the Reasoning Test as many hope because they know that one tests higher-level material.</p>

[leafblade1354]

<p>Oh wow. If I wrote the test I would definitely change that…</p>

<p>emphasis on the IF…</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

If I wrote the test I would definitely change that…

</p>

<p>Change what?</p>

[leafblade1354]

<p>I would make it so you could miss only 0 or omit 1 and still get an 800. I thought 10% of the population aced that test! CB definitely ruined my ego that day…</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>Yes, I would likewise support the College Board’s facilitation of more precise differentiation as long as the distinctions remain meaningful.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

Yes, I would likewise support the College Board’s facilitation of more precise differentiation

</p>

<p>Translation: I want to make the curve even harder on an already unreasonable exam for math-impaired folk.</p>

[leafblade1354]

<p>I can understand missing 1 or 2 by way of silly errors or misreading the questions (that was my biggest fear on that test…I wrote “Read the Problem” on my hand and only washed it off the night before :P) but 4 or 5 is a little too much.</p>

<p>^And math-impaired folk would voluntarily take this test why? :P</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

And math-impaired folk would voluntarily take this test why?

</p>

<p>I wonder the same thing.</p>