After going through many threads and talking to many of my friends, it seems like today’s first administration of the SAT was tremendously easier than other tests taken in the past. Do you guys trust collegeboard to make the right curves and concordance tables with the old SAT? How will they even make them?
As a student who worked extremely hard to get a 2100+ on the old SAT, I am beginning to feel like many many students will be walking away with perfect or near-perfect scores, putting me at a disadvantage when compared to my old SAT score,
What are your thoughts? For those who previously believed they were not going to take the new SAT, will you reconsider following the feedback today?
Concordances are developed by looking at students who took both tests and then aligning scores at each percentile. [The taking both tests is essential, because you can’t compare percentiles for different pools of students.] College Board did the preliminary concordance for the PSAT based on sample groups using both high school students and college freshmen. Presumably, they will have more data available from students taking the old SAT and the March SAT (both Saturday and school day). The concordances should be fairly accurate, and there is no reason to believe that old SAT takers will be at a disadvantage. The tables will adjust for any inflation.
Have same concern with old SAT v new SAT. As of now I think my child is done with ACT/SAT testing. Took it twice and both times the second score dropped so I don’t know if taking a third time will yield in a higher test score. So he took his PSAT after he took the first ACT and SAT and the scores align well so that’s what I’m looking at. He is worried because all his friends said it was “way easy”.
I feel like the curve would be different though. I took the old SAT twice but i’m still debating if i should bother with the new one since its different. I didn’t get my jan makeup scores back yet so untill both that score and the new a score comes out, i cant really make a decision. I don;t trust college board though.
The key will be how the CB builds the concordance tables between the old and new SAT, I assume this is what is many see as the curve.
When I look at the the old and new PSAT concordance tables you can see many more 2015 test takers compressed into the top scores. Would you not expect to see the new SAT handled the same way?
In my D’s case she went from the 89th percentile of 10th graders on last year’s PSAT to the 99th percentile as a junior year. Most of that increase is due to the new exam playing more to her strengths and her preparing better, but there is definitely a compression of scores at the very top.
The compression is going to make the new SAT virtually useless for the top tier of colleges. I suppose this is just a continuation of the dumbing down of tests that started in the 1980s. Maybe it is a reflection of common core.
The SAT has been useless for distinguishing among the really intellectually talented since its redesign in 1995. Prior to that date, the SAT had very high ceilings and perfect scores in either section were difficult to achieve (particularly in critical reading). Mensa even considered it a valid IQ test, and automatically accepted people in the 2% of SAT scores. Also, at that time, nobody really prepped for the SAT, and most people just took it once.
For these reasons, the pre-1995 test was a very fair test. Given decent schooling, a bright poor or middle class kid could excel on the SAT just as easily as a kid from the Hamptons. Top 20 schools were all very much in reach.
After 1995, it became a test of knowledge (Mensa stopped accepting it, for what that’s worth), and less difficult. A self-motivated bright child could achieve a 1500+ on the M+CR sections of the 1995-2016 test by spending $60 on a set of study books and 20 hours studying. A self-motivated but less capable student could improve scores by studying longer and harder. Kids who are not self-motivated can spend lots of money on test prep. Superscoring was then introduced, with the effect of inflating scores for kids that can afford to take the test multiple times.
The 2016 test seems to reduce the top range further. With this lack of discrimination among stronger kids, other measures of excellence become more important. These could be excellence in math contests, science research, or outstanding volunteer opportunities. But developing excellence in these areas takes considerable time (all but preventing a kid from having a job) and money (private coaches, etc.).
So with each revision, the net effect has been to disadvantage the poor and middle class students. Not sure that is what the College Board intended, but it is what they have gotten.