The SATs were recalibrated in 1995 to make the scoring distribution more uniform and less bell curve-shaped, and it makes it harder to compare scores before and after that time. If you had a test score in the 600s before 1995, give yourself another 70 or 80 points to compare to today's kids, and if you scored in the 700s, give yourself another 40 or 50 points.
This is very interesting. I asked ChatGPT about it, and it said "It's important to note that the effect of the SAT score recalibration is still debated and the studies have shown mixed results. Some studies indicate that the changes had little effect on overall scores, while others suggest that the changes made it more difficult for students to achieve the highest scores."
Do you have a source on the topic that you recommend as reliable?
It became much easier to achieve high scores after the recentering. 25 students got a perfect 1600 in 1994, 137 students got a perfect score in 1995. Page 3 of this report will show you how to convert pre-1995 scores to modern scores.
I have an anecdote to give you a sense of the scale of the recentering change.
I was a 1994 high school graduate and when I arrived at my university some of my paperwork included my SAT, 700 V, 740 M. But it also noted that under the new scheme my "recentered" numbers were 740 V, 740 M. Contemporaneous reporting was that it affected verbal scores the greatest with relatively little change in math scoring, so at least in my year and at my score range that was strue.
Huh, I just checked the link mobile posted, and I apparently I misremembered it - my actual new score would have been 760 V, pushing it ahead of my math. That does see familiar now.
Yeah, it sounds like Alexander has a lot of liars in that poll or no one who scored under 1500 was willing to answer the question. I only remember my overall number (I only took the test once)- 1370 and that I scored higher on the verbal than the math.
I was a public school student in a poor county in eastern Kentucky, but when I reflect back on it, the school system was actually very good given the poverty of the area. I can say pretty honestly that I didn't take as much advantage of the good quality of my teachers because I was one lazy ****. I didn't figure out how to learn until I was already in college.
Re: Joseph Henrich's theories of comparative development. A worthy research program, but let's keep in mind Arnold's recent posts about causal density, complex phenomena, naive realism, and the like -- the case for cognitive humility. It's one thing for a (fascinating) theory or hypothesis to stimulate a sound line of broad inquiry. It's quite another to adduce dispositive evidence or to establish a theory.
“No offense, but I doubt that your average scores are that high. “
Yes but I like to think that those of us who read both sites are even higher!
The SATs were recalibrated in 1995 to make the scoring distribution more uniform and less bell curve-shaped, and it makes it harder to compare scores before and after that time. If you had a test score in the 600s before 1995, give yourself another 70 or 80 points to compare to today's kids, and if you scored in the 700s, give yourself another 40 or 50 points.
This is very interesting. I asked ChatGPT about it, and it said "It's important to note that the effect of the SAT score recalibration is still debated and the studies have shown mixed results. Some studies indicate that the changes had little effect on overall scores, while others suggest that the changes made it more difficult for students to achieve the highest scores."
Do you have a source on the topic that you recommend as reliable?
It became much easier to achieve high scores after the recentering. 25 students got a perfect 1600 in 1994, 137 students got a perfect score in 1995. Page 3 of this report will show you how to convert pre-1995 scores to modern scores.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED563025.pdf
Thanks. Wow. Makes it more likely that Scott's readers didn't on average do better than me in verbal
I have an anecdote to give you a sense of the scale of the recentering change.
I was a 1994 high school graduate and when I arrived at my university some of my paperwork included my SAT, 700 V, 740 M. But it also noted that under the new scheme my "recentered" numbers were 740 V, 740 M. Contemporaneous reporting was that it affected verbal scores the greatest with relatively little change in math scoring, so at least in my year and at my score range that was strue.
Huh, I just checked the link mobile posted, and I apparently I misremembered it - my actual new score would have been 760 V, pushing it ahead of my math. That does see familiar now.
Thanks for reminding us of that. I took the SAT way back in 1970, and I thought there had been SAT inflation as well as grade inflation...
Yeah, it sounds like Alexander has a lot of liars in that poll or no one who scored under 1500 was willing to answer the question. I only remember my overall number (I only took the test once)- 1370 and that I scored higher on the verbal than the math.
I was a public school student in a poor county in eastern Kentucky, but when I reflect back on it, the school system was actually very good given the poverty of the area. I can say pretty honestly that I didn't take as much advantage of the good quality of my teachers because I was one lazy ****. I didn't figure out how to learn until I was already in college.
Sharp, but depressing essay by Katherine Boyle.
Re: Joseph Henrich's theories of comparative development. A worthy research program, but let's keep in mind Arnold's recent posts about causal density, complex phenomena, naive realism, and the like -- the case for cognitive humility. It's one thing for a (fascinating) theory or hypothesis to stimulate a sound line of broad inquiry. It's quite another to adduce dispositive evidence or to establish a theory.