KTM User Pages
03 Oct 2005 - 15:09
SAT scores were 'recentered' in 1995. Anyone tested before 1996 can use the charts posted below to convert his or her scores. The interesting thing, as KDeRosa has pointed out, is that it's mainly verbal scores that shot up after recentering. Not math scores. That was a big disappointment for me back when I first tracked these down. I was psyched to have my 620 Math shoot up into the 700s. No such luck. A 620 then is a 620 now. Instead, my Verbal score went from 720 to 790. I find this intriguing.
a job at Advantage Tutoring today.
"In April 1995, the College Board recentered the score scales for all tests in the SAT Program to reflect the contemporary test-taking population. Recentering reestablished the average score for a study group of 1990 seniors at about 500 — the midpoint of the 200-to-800 scale — allowing students, schools, and colleges to more easily interpret their scores in relation to those of a similar group of college-bound seniors."
College Board Equivalence Tables
College Board conversion table, SAT 1
"For 1972-1986 a formula was applied to the original mean and standard deviation to convert the mean to the recentered scale. For 1987-1995 individual student scores were converted to the recentered scale and then the mean was recomputed. From 1996-1999, nearly all students received scores on the recentered scale. Any score on the original scale was converted to the recentered scale prior to computing the mean. From 2000-2003, all scores are reported on the recentered scale."
2003 College Bound Seniors: A Profile of SAT Program Test Takers, page 3 (pdf file)
This 3rd chart shows you where I stacked up, percentile-wise at the end of high school. Bear in mind that SAT tests are taken only by kids going to college, and bear in mind that back when I was taking the SATs no one had ever heard of an SAT prep course. I walked into the SATs cold, not having looked at a math book in a year, sat down, and took the test. Where did I end up among the college-bound population? On math: top 10% of all girls, the top 13% of all boys. 11th percentile overall At the age of 17, I concluded that this meant I was, yes, reasonably good at math. Now I find out I don't know what a fraction is.
2003 College Bound Seniors: A Profile of SAT Program Test Takers, page 13 (pdf file)
Grudge Match: SAT vs ACT
SAT tests: recentered scores
SAT scores & calculator use
Back to main page.
KtmGuest (password: guest) when prompted.
Please consider registering as a regular user.
Look here for syntax help.
For heaven's sake, my math score went DOWN. -- CarolynJohnston - 03 Oct 2005
I demand a recount. -- CarolynJohnston - 03 Oct 2005
And my verbal score shot up to above my new math score. I've built my LIFE around those stupid scores, and now they want to recenter them? -- CarolynJohnston - 03 Oct 2005
Oh is that funny????!!!! I think Ed's went down, too! Let me check. -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
Yup! Ed's went down! You're in that 690 - 700 range, right? There's a weird little lacunae there where people's super-high math scores go down. -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
Ed's scores: Math 675 recentered to (probably) 670
Verbal 650 recentered to 710
I love it! -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
My split is so huge I should probably be diagnosed with Asperger syndrome right this minute, Without Further Ado. 170 point split V 790
-- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
OK, I'm going to print out your posts on automaticity & apply my piddling M-620 brain to it. -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
My old scores: V 670 M 710 new scores: V 730 M 700 -- CarolynJohnston - 03 Oct 2005
Catherine, is it too late to have a career as a writer? -- CarolynJohnston - 03 Oct 2005
Actually.....looking at that split (just to carry on with the Narcissism of Me-Me-Me)....it strikes me that that is almost certainly evidence that my math education wasn't what it should have been. I'm still not math-savvy enough to know whether a 170 split on the SATs is equivalent to the split LD kids have on IQ tests (Susan - help!) but given the fact that I don't have a learning disability, I'm pretty sure I shouldn't have this kind of gap. Susan, when you're around, what is the 'LD gap' - how significant a gap does a child have between his 'good scale' and his 'bad scale' in order to be defined as having a specific learning disability? Is it defined by standard deviations? (I always hear CSE-types talking about 'performing two grade levels below age.') -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
oh my gosh I can't believe your scores!!!! -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
730 verbal, 700 math ho ho ho! no wonder you were telling interviewers you 'liked to write'! -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
a person can start a career as a writer AT ANY AGE -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
Here's one of my favorite Starting Late stories:
the great Chicano novel "Famous All Over Town", by an unknown young Danny Santiago: in fact a very good novel. "Famous" turned out to have been written by an elderly WASP named Dan James. A Hollywood scriptwriter in the 1930s, later blacklisted for his Communist connections, Dan James was luckier than "Rahila Khan". His novel was not pulped, despite James' having been a Yalie and no Chicano. The book is still very much in print.Famous All Over Town I think 'Danny Santiago' was in his 80s when he wrote FAMOUS ALL OVER TOWN, and I'm pretty sure it was his first novel. However, skimming John Gregory Dunne's NYRB article on him, it sounds like "Santiago" (his real name was Dan James) actually was writing throughout his entire life. (He was a blacklisted screenwriter who, once he couldn't get screenwriting work, did continue to write short stories.) Still, a first novel in your 80s - and a first novel that people loved - that's impressive. You can't automatically jump from short stories to novels. -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
The Secret of Danny Santiago by John Gregory Dunne (subscription probably required) -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
"I'm still not math-savvy enough to know whether a 170 split on the SATs is equivalent to the split LD kids have on IQ tests (Susan - help!) but given the fact that I don't have a learning disability, I'm pretty sure I shouldn't have this kind of gap." Something's definitely up with that split, that's for sure. SAT scores (OLD SAT scores, I should say) are very tightly correlated with IQ. What's a standard deviation for the SAT? Anyway -- if the math score were lower, I'd really wonder if Asperger's weren't involved! BUT -- 620 is a respectable math score. This isn't a 40-point IQ split from 80-120 we're talking about -- it's a 40 point split from 120 to 160. -- CarolynJohnston - 03 Oct 2005
Ummm... I really cannot see myself writing novels! But thank you for the thought. ;-) -- CarolynJohnston - 03 Oct 2005
Something's definitely up with that split, that's for sure. SAT scores (OLD SAT scores, I should say) are very tightly correlated with IQ. What's a standard deviation for the SAT? Oh, is that right? Makes sense. Yeah, I'm ALMOST certain you shouldn't be seeing a 170-point gap. -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
Unless the person actually does have a learning disability, which I don't. -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
I don't think it matters so much that the split is 620 to 790....my understanding is that in Asperger's and in specific learning disabilities you can get huge splits that start way up at the top of the scale and then go down to a 'low' of above average. If that makes a lick of sense, which it does not. garble garble -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
This is a job for Susan -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
What I'm not sure about is what happens when a kid is at the top of the range in one thing, and then well above average in something else. Which is your point. -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
I just gave Danny Santiago as an example. My broader point is you can become any kind of writer whatsoever at any age. -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
I'm avoiding this thread. My SAT's were an embarrassment. My dad thought it was cheating if I prepared in any way. I took it again and it jumped quite a bit, but it was still awful. Well, the math part. I think the spread in the subtest scores of the WISC IQ tests that might mean something is around 7-9 points. They should cluster close to 3 or less apart. I think I read that even performance and verbal should be pretty close together, as well. I'll go try to find my source for that. I think it was The Misunderstood Child by Larry Silver. I don't know if you could easily pick up an LD from SAT scores otherwise I should've been in special ed in math. I never studied for the GRE's either, which was not funny when I came across a bunch of math stuff that I would have easily gotten right if I had just remembered. Thank God for Fine Arts scholarships, that's all I've got to say. -- SusanS - 03 Oct 2005
No, no, no, no, no, Susan, you do NOT get to avoid this thread! You have been DRAFTED! -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
"I think the spread in the subtest scores of the WISC IQ tests that might mean something is around 7-9 points. They should cluster close to 3 or less apart." Really? Ben's WISC-IV subtest scores in performance were wildly skew. His processing speed was in the 80s, I think, and his computation/memory/etc. stuff was in the 120s. The processing speed problem had an obvious cause. He would motor along working at speed for a little while, and then have to stop because he was distracted or for some ritual or other (he has a touch of OCD, unsurprisingly). His verbal scores all clustered. -- CarolynJohnston - 03 Oct 2005
"I think the spread in the subtest scores of the WISC IQ tests that might mean something is around 7-9 points. They should cluster close to 3 or less apart." Hmm, my son just took an IQ test for possible entrance into a local GATE school. The difference between his verbal and processing speed scores was around 30 points. He's only five (six next week), so I wasn't especially concerned; should I be? (Dang, I didn't get a 1600 on the renorm. I think it's interesting that my lower score went to 800 though.) -- DougSundseth - 03 Oct 2005
Carolyn, I'm thinking of the subtest scores that only go to 19. I think they're the Performance WISC subtest scores. The ones with things like "Coding" and "Object Assembly" as part of it. I believe 10 would be roughly average, and anything up around 17, 18, and 19 is high ability/gifted (maybe not 17.) Maybe it changed by WISC IV or maybe I'm looking at a different part. I think my LD son took the earlier one because that was over 6-7 years ago. We must be talking about two different things. -- SusanS - 03 Oct 2005
"Hmm, my son just took an IQ test for possible entrance into a local GATE school. The difference between his verbal and processing speed scores was around 30 points. He's only five (six next week), so I wasn't especially concerned; should I be?" No, not concern (unless he's having problems), but it's something to keep an eye on as he continues in school. Or else he'll end up like Catherine, wondering why he's a blithering genius in one area and only moderately brilliant in another. ;-) -- CarolynJohnston - 03 Oct 2005
Susan, we're talking about the same things -- those performance scores map to IQ subtest scores, normed to 100 points. Your son took the WISC-3, though, it sounds like. The WISC-3 and -4 are VERY different, and I think the WISC-4 is much more useful because specific pieces are broken out more meaningfully. Ben took both, and the WISC-3 was downright misleading. -- CarolynJohnston - 03 Oct 2005
Hmm, my son just took an IQ test for possible entrance into a local GATE school. The difference between his verbal and processing speed scores was around 30 points. 'Processing speed' is new to me. What scale is that? Is it also supposed to be in line with the other scores? -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
Doug You should quit your job RIGHT NOW and work for ADVANTAGE. Then retire young. -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
blithering genius I love it! -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
WHAT IS PROCESSING SPEED????? -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
verbal 690 ---> 750
math 750 ---> 760
(98th percentile; 99th).
these scores are corrected from a few hours ago.
and i haven't got anything much to say about 'em
except that they're actually right. sorry about that.
i've deleted a response to my more interesting (but wronger)
first post; hope that's according to wiki protocol. -- VlorbikDotCom - 03 Oct 2005
Yeah, I just checked math kid's test. He was definitely WISC III. He also took the WIAT test, which has to do with achievement. I think the idea was to see if they were teaching him on his level and the WIAT revealed that they reallly weren't. It was going to be my evidence for the school if they gave me any trouble, which they didn't. Of course, now that I'm looking at the full report I see that math kid's numbers do not all cluster together and that there's a 7 point spread between the high and the low. There's also a mention of his "implusivity" and possible "attention deficits," which may explain why I've been called to a big powwow with his teachers about his "issues." Grrreeaaat. -- SusanS - 03 Oct 2005
I admit, I'm not sure I really understand what happens with recentering. I have been assuming that meant that you now score higher on a given raw score than you would have for the same raw score prior to re-centering. In other words, getting the same number of questions right today gets you a higher score than it would have in previous years. I mentioned this in a previous post, but it seems like the math scores has two distinct subsets. The verbal scores get an across-the-board boost of around 60-80 points. If you plot the change in scores against the original scores, you'd see a peak at around 350 (old scores) and at the far right end of the scale (since scores are capped at 800, the score increases at 770+ necessarily decrease). This suggests to me that we're dealing with two very different populations in terms of math scores. I've had teachers tell me that their students score distributions usually exhibit the same two-peaked score distributions: a large number of students who don't keep up with the work, distributed normally according to their abilities, and a smaller peak further to the right of students who did the work, again distributed normally according to their abilities. The question is, what is the factor causing this split in scores, and why aren't the verbal scores affected in the same way? -- IndependentGeorge - 03 Oct 2005
Oh, and since everybody else is giving their scores, I had a 720 verbal bumped up to 790, and my 740 math stayed right were it was. -- IndependentGeorge - 03 Oct 2005
Re: processing speed: I misspoke. I meant verbal and performance. The processing speed thing is a subtest of the performance test. Re: "blithering genius -- I love it!": I have a way with words, being (apparently) a verbal sort of person. ;-) HEY! I'm a "verbal-brain!" -- CarolynJohnston - 03 Oct 2005
"Or else he'll end up like Catherine...." Well, it'd be awfully hard to complain about that. -- DougSundseth - 03 Oct 2005
Susan Of course, now that I'm looking at the full report I see that math kid's numbers do not all cluster together and that there's a 7 point spread between the high and the low. There's also a mention of his "implusivity" and possible "attention deficits," which may explain why I've been called to a big powwow with his teachers about his "issues." Grrreeaaat. Aren't you glad we made you look? -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
I've had teachers tell me that their students score distributions usually exhibit the same two-peaked score distributions: a large number of students who don't keep up with the work, distributed normally according to their abilities, and a smaller peak further to the right of students who did the work, again distributed normally according to their abilities. The question is, what is the factor causing this split in scores, and why aren't the verbal scores affected in the same way? That's interesting. wow. cool. -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
Independent George OK, I'm not quite following the first part. hmm I just re-read, and I'm definitely not following. What's the distinction you're drawing between SAT math & SAT verbal? -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
Doug Thank you. I needed that. Especially since I have to call my agent. Again. Excuse me while I go do that. -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
Implusivity. That's a new word. Closely related to impulsivity. -- SusanS - 03 Oct 2005
Implusivity. -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
I like that. -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
"Implusivity. That's a new word. Closely related to impulsivity." But clearly more positive. It should be a big hit with the purveyors of "self image". Don't tell them, OK? 8-) -- DougSundseth - 03 Oct 2005
I still do not have my answer about point-spread in standardized testing! -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
I'm looking. I just don't know where to look, exactly. -- SusanS - 03 Oct 2005
Oooh: "Implusplusivity" That's doubleplusgood. -- DougSundseth - 03 Oct 2005
the standard deviation for both SAT Verbal and Math is about 111 and 115 points respectively from table 6 above. The SD for IQ is 15 points. So 226 pts SAT V+M equals 15 points of IQ, assuming the SAT still correlates with IQ which it may no longer do. -- KDeRosa - 03 Oct 2005
I don't really see how SATs can reliably be used to tell an IQ. Maybe all things being equal, like decent schooling and exposure. But a disadvantaged or poorly educated child can still have a high IQ. There is one subtest that relates to exposure or general information and even that one also reveals long term memory ability. However, you can have a high IQ, but I imagine if your school is bad and you learned nothing, your SATs are going to be low. SATs are measuring achievement which isn't necessarily your intellectual aptitude, although if your SAT is high (like some of you smarty pantses)I imagine you could assume that there's a high IQ there somewhere. I don't think a low one can necessarily correlate to a low IQ (I hope.) But someone who's had a higher course load and worked harder is just going to do better on the SAT then someone with a regular load, otherwise there wouldn't be anything to these SAT prep courses. You can't really study for an IQ test, although a couple of subtests are affected by exposure. -- SusanS - 03 Oct 2005
See http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/GREIQ.html for the IQ v. SAT corelation table. -- KDeRosa - 03 Oct 2005
KDeRosa Here's my question, exactly. What is the standard deviation on a WISC (or similar test) that would identify a child as having a specific learning disability? (Kids are supposed to test pretty close on all the subscales. If a child has a wide gap between one subscale and others, that can be evidence of a learning disability.) How large is a 170 point gap on the SAT? Is it as big as the gap on an IQ test that would point to a specific learning disability? (And, btw, I'm not fishing for a distance-diagnosis, so don't worry! I'm curious.) -- CatherineJohnson - 03 Oct 2005
The problem with identifying learning disabilities is that they are more legal conditions than medical conditions. About 6% of the general population has a genuine medically identifiable handicap that affects learning -- physical disabilities (mental retardation, blindness, deafness, etc.), emotional disabilities, autism, speech impairments, etc. This number has remained somewhat constant. Then we have "specific learning disabilities" which account for all the rest. It is this group that has been growing at an alarming rate. The usual qualification for SLD is that the student is performing below expectation. This is an amorphous standard that is open to mischief. The term itself implies that something is wrong with the student which I think is wrong. Think about it. You have students that aren't learning to their potential when exposed to cognitively unsounds teaching practices. Then when you expose them to cognitively sound practices they miraculously recover in most cases. I think it's more profitable to look at it as a teaching disability instead. Now consider the perverse incentives that are preseent under the existing laws. If you teach your students poorly, you can label the the lower achievers as having SLD.s and you can get lots of money from the Feds and State if you are a poor district. Also, by labeling the low performers as learning disabled you are effectively absolved from accountability caused by bad teaching practices. It's win-win for most school districts. This is why they all hate NCLB because it forces accountability even for the SLD kids. Anyway, having said this I don't think the a gap is necessarily indicative of a problem necessaily. Although, a problem could arise if the lower score were below the mean and accompanied by bad teaching. In Catherine's case, even with a gap of 170 points she is still within the top 1% of the general population. And, a good portion of the gap is an artifact of recentering. My understanging is that verbal/math gaps are somewhat common even in non-disabled persons. -- KDeRosa - 04 Oct 2005
he usual qualification for SLD is that the student is performing below expectation. This is an amorphous standard that is open to mischief. Actually, it's much more specific than that (I'm the parent rep on CSE meetings). To qualify for the legal category of learning disability, a child has to have a normal IQ & perform two grade levels below his age, using age-referenced norms. I think it's the case that what you often or usually see is a large gap between subscales on IQ tests, which is not normal. The norm is an 'even' performance across all scales. -- CatherineJohnson - 04 Oct 2005
I have no idea what the norm is for SAT tests in terms of even performance. Sometime during adolescence the brain seems to specialize (though I'm sure talents & inclinations are present before that point). As far as I can tell (and I don't know this at all) 'unevenness' of abilities develops towards adulthood. (If that's so, then it would be normal to see a huge split on verbal & math--although I'd put money on it that the gap I have is unusal.) -- CatherineJohnson - 04 Oct 2005
I believe that is the Fed standard, although states can also set their own standard for LDs. At least that's what I think. The standard is written this way to avoid the expense of placing every kid who is not meeting the standard in special ed. It is a bit of an arbitrary cut-off. My understanding is that root cause of most kids with SLDs is poor reading skills which causes havoc with most other skills after grade 3. As far as the V-M gap goes, I know many engineering types with 100+ gaps in SATs. I think it is mostly caused by practising say math skills and letting the verbal skills wither, a result of specialization most likely. -- KDeRosa - 04 Oct 2005