digital SAT scores

[Anonymous]

Has anyone heard that it is harder to crack 1500 with the digital SAT than with the paper version? Wondering if this is just a rumor/anecdotal among (sophomore) DC's friends who are juniors or if there is any evidence to back it up. Trying to figure out if DC should prep for ACT instead...

[Anonymous]

Hard to say. Just found these two articles. NJ state average the year before digital was 1056 and on the first digital was 1171, so it went up quite a lot overall. My kid's math score went down 50 points on the first digital March test. Retook the most recent one last week and said it was a lot easier.

https://www.nj.com/education/2024/04/see-sat-scores-for-every-nj-public-high-school-as-averages-fall-again.html

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/education/2024/03/22/first-ever-digital-sat-exam-scores-are-out-how-did-nj-do-college-board-admissions/73066674007/

[Anonymous]

OP the reason it is harder to crack that threshold is because if you don't score above a certain number on the math you get directed to a second section that is easier and ultimately you can only score so much of you go there. If you do extremely well on the first math section, you're bumped into a more challenging 2nd section that can lead to a higher overall score.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the digital will lead to higher scores over-all but fewer over 1500.

The first math section is SUPER easy. So most kids will get bumped to the harder track which probably gives them a baseline minimum score (550?) that is higher than if they just took the old paper test. However, then it's quite hard to do well in the hard math section.

I bet there are more scores above >1000 than with the old test but less >1500.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the digital will lead to higher scores over-all but fewer over 1500.

The first math section is SUPER easy. So most kids will get bumped to the harder track which probably gives them a baseline minimum score (550?) that is higher than if they just took the old paper test. However, then it's quite hard to do well in the hard math section.

I bet there are more scores above >1000 than with the old test but less >1500.

its certainly fits higher eds institutional priorities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the digital will lead to higher scores over-all but fewer over 1500.

The first math section is SUPER easy. So most kids will get bumped to the harder track which probably gives them a baseline minimum score (550?) that is higher than if they just took the old paper test. However, then it's quite hard to do well in the hard math section.

I bet there are more scores above >1000 than with the old test but less >1500.

its certainly fits higher eds institutional priorities

I was listening to a podcast about the digital SAT that supports the PP's theory. The new DSAT meets two goals: 1) keeps or increases the average national goal, and 2) creates better differentiation between high scorers.

Here is Applerouth's assessment:

If a test is too easy, the curve can be punishing for students who miss one or two items. Over the years there have been SATs where missing a single item could drop a student from a score of 800 to a 750, and missing a second item could drop a student to a 720. Colleges are making distinctions between students across the scoring spectrum, and more granular differentiation has value in their admissions process. The test writers at the College Board wanted to meet the needs of admissions offices, to better differentiate students in the 700-800 range, and to this end, a more challenging test is necessary. Test writers need to include enough difficult items to make meaningful distinctions between scores of 800, 790, 780, all the way down the curve. The March SAT had an abundance of harder items in the more challenging adaptive modules.

https://www.applerouth.com/blog/insights-from-the-march-sat-what-test-takers-need-to-know

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hard to say. Just found these two articles. NJ state average the year before digital was 1056 and on the first digital was 1171, so it went up quite a lot overall. My kid's math score went down 50 points on the first digital March test. Retook the most recent one last week and said it was a lot easier.

https://www.nj.com/education/2024/04/see-sat-scores-for-every-nj-public-high-school-as-averages-fall-again.html

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/education/2024/03/22/first-ever-digital-sat-exam-scores-are-out-how-did-nj-do-college-board-admissions/73066674007/

According to the SAT score report for the School Day exams, the national average was 948! Arguably, the school day exams are more representative of national averages. It will be interesting to see what the national averages end up being after all of the exam dates are administered in June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the digital will lead to higher scores over-all but fewer over 1500.

The first math section is SUPER easy. So most kids will get bumped to the harder track which probably gives them a baseline minimum score (550?) that is higher than if they just took the old paper test. However, then it's quite hard to do well in the hard math section.

I bet there are more scores above >1000 than with the old test but less >1500.

its certainly fits higher eds institutional priorities

I was listening to a podcast about the digital SAT that supports the PP's theory. The new DSAT meets two goals: 1) keeps or increases the average national goal, and 2) creates better differentiation between high scorers.

Here is Applerouth's assessment:

If a test is too easy, the curve can be punishing for students who miss one or two items. Over the years there have been SATs where missing a single item could drop a student from a score of 800 to a 750, and missing a second item could drop a student to a 720. Colleges are making distinctions between students across the scoring spectrum, and more granular differentiation has value in their admissions process. The test writers at the College Board wanted to meet the needs of admissions offices, to better differentiate students in the 700-800 range, and to this end, a more challenging test is necessary. Test writers need to include enough difficult items to make meaningful distinctions between scores of 800, 790, 780, all the way down the curve. The March SAT had an abundance of harder items in the more challenging adaptive modules.

https://www.applerouth.com/blog/insights-from-the-march-sat-what-test-takers-need-to-know

This is an interesting theory and helpful. Makes sense too. FWIW, DC has consistently scored in the low 700s on each section of the digital test after scoring in the 750-780 range on paper practice tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the digital will lead to higher scores over-all but fewer over 1500.

The first math section is SUPER easy. So most kids will get bumped to the harder track which probably gives them a baseline minimum score (550?) that is higher than if they just took the old paper test. However, then it's quite hard to do well in the hard math section.

I bet there are more scores above >1000 than with the old test but less >1500.

its certainly fits higher eds institutional priorities

I was listening to a podcast about the digital SAT that supports the PP's theory. The new DSAT meets two goals: 1) keeps or increases the average national goal, and 2) creates better differentiation between high scorers.

Here is Applerouth's assessment:

If a test is too easy, the curve can be punishing for students who miss one or two items. Over the years there have been SATs where missing a single item could drop a student from a score of 800 to a 750, and missing a second item could drop a student to a 720. Colleges are making distinctions between students across the scoring spectrum, and more granular differentiation has value in their admissions process. The test writers at the College Board wanted to meet the needs of admissions offices, to better differentiate students in the 700-800 range, and to this end, a more challenging test is necessary. Test writers need to include enough difficult items to make meaningful distinctions between scores of 800, 790, 780, all the way down the curve. The March SAT had an abundance of harder items in the more challenging adaptive modules.

https://www.applerouth.com/blog/insights-from-the-march-sat-what-test-takers-need-to-know

This is an interesting theory and helpful. Makes sense too. FWIW, DC has consistently scored in the low 700s on each section of the digital test after scoring in the 750-780 range on paper practice tests.

Same here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to say. Just found these two articles. NJ state average the year before digital was 1056 and on the first digital was 1171, so it went up quite a lot overall. My kid's math score went down 50 points on the first digital March test. Retook the most recent one last week and said it was a lot easier.

https://www.nj.com/education/2024/04/see-sat-scores-for-every-nj-public-high-school-as-averages-fall-again.html

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/education/2024/03/22/first-ever-digital-sat-exam-scores-are-out-how-did-nj-do-college-board-admissions/73066674007/

According to the SAT score report for the School Day exams, the national average was 948! Arguably, the school day exams are more representative of national averages. It will be interesting to see what the national averages end up being after all of the exam dates are administered in June.

I wish they published the distributions…that would help test the theory that averages are increase with the DSAT but “tails” are shrinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the digital will lead to higher scores over-all but fewer over 1500.

The first math section is SUPER easy. So most kids will get bumped to the harder track which probably gives them a baseline minimum score (550?) that is higher than if they just took the old paper test. However, then it's quite hard to do well in the hard math section.

I bet there are more scores above >1000 than with the old test but less >1500.

its certainly fits higher eds institutional priorities

I was listening to a podcast about the digital SAT that supports the PP's theory. The new DSAT meets two goals: 1) keeps or increases the average national goal, and 2) creates better differentiation between high scorers.

Here is Applerouth's assessment:

If a test is too easy, the curve can be punishing for students who miss one or two items. Over the years there have been SATs where missing a single item could drop a student from a score of 800 to a 750, and missing a second item could drop a student to a 720. Colleges are making distinctions between students across the scoring spectrum, and more granular differentiation has value in their admissions process. The test writers at the College Board wanted to meet the needs of admissions offices, to better differentiate students in the 700-800 range, and to this end, a more challenging test is necessary. Test writers need to include enough difficult items to make meaningful distinctions between scores of 800, 790, 780, all the way down the curve. The March SAT had an abundance of harder items in the more challenging adaptive modules.

https://www.applerouth.com/blog/insights-from-the-march-sat-what-test-takers-need-to-know

This is an interesting theory and helpful. Makes sense too. FWIW, DC has consistently scored in the low 700s on each section of the digital test after scoring in the 750-780 range on paper practice tests.

Same here.

My kid was the opposite. Up 20 points verbal / 60 math in March from the last paper exam given in November. Digital practice with Princeton Review had been lower, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to say. Just found these two articles. NJ state average the year before digital was 1056 and on the first digital was 1171, so it went up quite a lot overall. My kid's math score went down 50 points on the first digital March test. Retook the most recent one last week and said it was a lot easier.

https://www.nj.com/education/2024/04/see-sat-scores-for-every-nj-public-high-school-as-averages-fall-again.html

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/education/2024/03/22/first-ever-digital-sat-exam-scores-are-out-how-did-nj-do-college-board-admissions/73066674007/

According to the SAT score report for the School Day exams, the national average was 948! Arguably, the school day exams are more representative of national averages. It will be interesting to see what the national averages end up being after all of the exam dates are administered in June.

I wish they published the distributions…that would help test the theory that averages are increase with the DSAT but “tails” are shrinking.

Yes, that would help, but the College Board is not known for transparency! I think the tails are shrinking, and once all the data is in, the national average for the 2023-24 testing period will be around 1050.

[Anonymous]

This is really fascinating.

I think differentiation at the top end was much needed. Remember the old days? Getting a perfect score happened a few times a year nation-wide. In recent years, a high score on the paper exam became basically meaningless because so many kids had one and the test itself was completely conquerable for any reasonably smart student who put in enough work.

The bummer is that the switch happened mid-year for the class of 2025 so some kids have high 1500 paper scores from the fall that would not get them this spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is really fascinating.

I think differentiation at the top end was much needed. Remember the old days? Getting a perfect score happened a few times a year nation-wide. In recent years, a high score on the paper exam became basically meaningless because so many kids had one and the test itself was completely conquerable for any reasonably smart student who put in enough work.

The bummer is that the switch happened mid-year for the class of 2025 so some kids have high 1500 paper scores from the fall that would not get them this spring.

Well, I think students have to put the dates down of the tests for the scores they are using so (in theory) if it’s true that the tails are shorter on the digital test than colleges should know this and factor it in during a holistic review.