<p>I don't understand why these tests are scored out of such seemingly random numbers as 2400 and 36. Wouldn't it be simpler if they were scored out of 100, like ordinary school tests? Is there any benefit to the different scoring system?</p>
<p>Honestly I am not sure. Since the SAT currently has three sections, a max score that is a multiple of 3, such as 300, would make more sense. In reality, the numerical score doesn’t matter; percentile or z-score (# standard deviations above/below mean) say a lot more.</p>
<p>Maybe 181 different values (600-2400 in 10 point increments) allows for more differentiation among applicants in the upper realms. Not sure about the ACT, though.</p>
<p>I think the total percentage out of 300 for the SAT makes sense. The three scores could even be averaged instead of summed to provide a different scoring system.</p>
<p>And as far as differentiation, adding decimal places in the score would provide enough values, right?</p>
<p>@timewarptrio: I can already imagine:
•“I think Harvard is a reach for you. After all, I got a 299.8 on the SAT and was rejected, and you only got a 299.6.”
•“I got a 299.9 on the SAT. Should I re-take for a perfect score?”
•“When I took the SAT, one missed question was a measly 299.5, so keep that in mind when chancing me.”</p>
<p>It’d be very complicated for both cases. If you are talking SAT, then there are many sections and so many questions for each that it cannot be made reasonable to make it out of 25. That is in contrary to ACT, which has “average” grading, and that means there are sub-scores. Seriously, there is no effect if the value was to be 36 or 100 or even 506700000. </p>
<p>Does it really matter what the number of points are when they get curved to percentiles? </p>
<p>Lots of things in life don’t come in neat bundles of 100.</p>
<p>@GMTplus7 Sure, but a 99th percentile SAT is only around 2200+</p>