Are SAT scores just higher now than the mid/late 90s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot more Chinese and Indian-ancestry kids graduating from high school now than there were in the 80s and 90s. They make up half (or more) of the kids scoring 1400+ on the SAT.

Most ethnic groups are doing worse on the SAT these days, but Asian-ancestry kids are still doing really well.

You are not seriously trying to argue that the high number of good scores is because of Asian immigration?????

DP here. Why not? It’s a stereotype but it is known that test prep and study culture is common in some Asian countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Take a sample test, see how it jibes with your recollection, and decide how much value the current test should have.

My impression it is much simpler, and yes that means scores should be higher, but even then the score doesn’t indicate much.

Simpler and soon-to-be shorter: the new digital SAT will be only be 2 hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot more Chinese and Indian-ancestry kids graduating from high school now than there were in the 80s and 90s. They make up half (or more) of the kids scoring 1400+ on the SAT.

Most ethnic groups are doing worse on the SAT these days, but Asian-ancestry kids are still doing really well.

The test prep mills and nationalized high stakes testing are part of "Asian-ancestry " culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I blame the internet for making it so much easier to prep for the SAT. Or maybe I blame the internet for exposing it and showing us all it isn't very good at measuring aptitude?

Interesting.. I blame the College Board for making the test so much easier.

The College Board is desperately trying to stay relevant - that's why.

Test Optional is the new normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's established that:

1) more people prep
2) guessing penalty was eliminated
3) scores were adjusted/re-normed in 90s so that they are higher.

These adequately explain why scores are overall much higher. (Test Optional explains why certain colleges' median scores are much higher but that is not the question here.) But is it actually true that the questions are easier as a few PPs have suggested?

I have mixed feelings about this topic. I went to a prep school in the 80s where it was absolutely the norm to prep. I vaguely remember the the money-back guarantee that prepping would raise SAT scores by 200 points. As a scholarship student, I did not prep. If prepping exists at all--and, yes, it is unfair that it does--better that more be included than a select few.

I don't know why the College Board decided to re-norm but I also don't see the change as a huge problem.

I am genuinely curious whether the questions are actually easier as suggested.

The SAT is easier because the fundamental nature of the test changed during the redesign in 1994. In 1990, the College Board created a commission to update and change the test to stay relevant and address growing criticism basically. Link to the original report: https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/beyond-prediction.pdf

The SAT was redesigned to measure "achievement and developed ability" instead of aptitude, which aligned the SAT with IQ tests. The College Board renamed the test from the "Scholastic Aptitude Test" to the "Scholastic Assessment Test." The then-president admitted to renaming the test "to correct the impression among some people that the SAT measures something that is innate and impervious to change regardless of effort or instruction." Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/03/27/sat-changes-name-but-it-wont-score-1600-with-critics/c8bf8809-2c0f-4582-9911-9e5f74ed4c6d/

The current SAT measures preparedness for college. The significant number of students scoring >1400 since the 1990s indicates that more students are prepared for college; however, the test can no longer determine if someone has the aptitude (intelligence) to do well in college. I would argue that excluding students with learning disabilities and testing anxiety, most students who don't score well on the test (1300+) have learning gaps due to a number of reasons, such as underresourced schools, weak math curriculum, never learned grammar/writing conventions, etc.

Don't forget about the racist origins of the SAT ( see Carl Brigham and eugenics).

[Anonymous]

Graduated in 1993 from a low achieving rural HS and got a 1470. I had some cousins who went to college so I don’t know if I was first generation.

I thought about applying to the Ivies but thought “no way can my parents and I afford the $20,000 tuition, I’m not on food stamps so I won’t get need based aid, and you probably have to have a 1600 to get a merit scholarship.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The SAT has changed something like four times and the scores have been "recentered" as well.

You can see a simple history of the changes over time on wikipedia.

The test is now going digital and my understanding is that it will be shorter (2 hrs?).

I also recommend Art Sawyer's blog at Compass Prep.

[Anonymous]

College Board has lowered the standard a lot over the time, particularly with the introduction of digital SAT.

Just like GPA in public schools, every one gets 4.0, now every one get 1500 in digital SAT.

To stand out for T10 or even T25, the kids need to achieve 1550 just to be sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:College Board has lowered the standard a lot over the time, particularly with the introduction of digital SAT.

Just like GPA in public schools, every one gets 4.0, now every one get 1500 in digital SAT.

To stand out for T10 or even T25, the kids need to achieve 1550 just to be sure.

Just plain False. My kid took the regular SAT and then the digital. The math section on the first digital(at least-haven't taken one since) was insanely hard. This was evident nation wide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Board has lowered the standard a lot over the time, particularly with the introduction of digital SAT.

Just like GPA in public schools, every one gets 4.0, now every one get 1500 in digital SAT.

To stand out for T10 or even T25, the kids need to achieve 1550 just to be sure.

Just plain False. My kid took the regular SAT and then the digital. The math section on the first digital(at least-haven't taken one since) was insanely hard. This was evident nation wide.

Evidence says otherwise. Just do some simply googling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Board has lowered the standard a lot over the time, particularly with the introduction of digital SAT.

Just like GPA in public schools, every one gets 4.0, now every one get 1500 in digital SAT.

To stand out for T10 or even T25, the kids need to achieve 1550 just to be sure.

Just plain False. My kid took the regular SAT and then the digital. The math section on the first digital(at least-haven't taken one since) was insanely hard. This was evident nation wide.

Evidence says otherwise. Just do some simply googling.

There is no evidence that the digital is easier.

I dare you to find it. Please post it when you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Board has lowered the standard a lot over the time, particularly with the introduction of digital SAT.

Just like GPA in public schools, every one gets 4.0, now every one get 1500 in digital SAT.

To stand out for T10 or even T25, the kids need to achieve 1550 just to be sure.

Just plain False. My kid took the regular SAT and then the digital. The math section on the first digital(at least-haven't taken one since) was insanely hard. This was evident nation wide.

That means your kid likes did well on the math questions. They have adaptive testing now where you get more difficult questions if you get most of the first set of questions. correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:College Board has lowered the standard a lot over the time, particularly with the introduction of digital SAT.

Just like GPA in public schools, every one gets 4.0, now every one get 1500 in digital SAT.

To stand out for T10 or even T25, the kids need to achieve 1550 just to be sure.

In 2023 only 7% scored over 1400, which was not “everyone”, and I doubt it will be much higher on the dSAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Board has lowered the standard a lot over the time, particularly with the introduction of digital SAT.

Just like GPA in public schools, every one gets 4.0, now every one get 1500 in digital SAT.

To stand out for T10 or even T25, the kids need to achieve 1550 just to be sure.

Just plain False. My kid took the regular SAT and then the digital. The math section on the first digital(at least-haven't taken one since) was insanely hard. This was evident nation wide.

Evidence says otherwise. Just do some simply googling.

College board says they are the same.
https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/Digital_SAT_Score_Relationships_with_Other_Educational_Measures.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's established that:

1) more people prep
2) guessing penalty was eliminated
3) scores were adjusted/re-normed in 90s so that they are higher.

These adequately explain why scores are overall much higher. (Test Optional explains why certain colleges' median scores are much higher but that is not the question here.) But is it actually true that the questions are easier as a few PPs have suggested?

I have mixed feelings about this topic. I went to a prep school in the 80s where it was absolutely the norm to prep. I vaguely remember the the money-back guarantee that prepping would raise SAT scores by 200 points. As a scholarship student, I did not prep. If prepping exists at all--and, yes, it is unfair that it does--better that more be included than a select few.

I don't know why the College Board decided to re-norm but I also don't see the change as a huge problem.

I am genuinely curious whether the questions are actually easier as suggested.

The SAT is easier because the fundamental nature of the test changed during the redesign in 1994. In 1990, the College Board created a commission to update and change the test to stay relevant and address growing criticism basically. Link to the original report: https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/beyond-prediction.pdf

The SAT was redesigned to measure "achievement and developed ability" instead of aptitude, which aligned the SAT with IQ tests. The College Board renamed the test from the "Scholastic Aptitude Test" to the "Scholastic Assessment Test." The then-president admitted to renaming the test "to correct the impression among some people that the SAT measures something that is innate and impervious to change regardless of effort or instruction." Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/03/27/sat-changes-name-but-it-wont-score-1600-with-critics/c8bf8809-2c0f-4582-9911-9e5f74ed4c6d/

The current SAT measures preparedness for college. The significant number of students scoring >1400 since the 1990s indicates that more students are prepared for college; however, the test can no longer determine if someone has the aptitude (intelligence) to do well in college. I would argue that excluding students with learning disabilities and testing anxiety, most students who don't score well on the test (1300+) have learning gaps due to a number of reasons, such as underresourced schools, weak math curriculum, never learned grammar/writing conventions, etc.

Don't forget about the racist origins of the SAT ( see Carl Brigham and eugenics).

This may be true, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether SATs are effective for predicting which students can succeed in college. He was a terrible person, but that doesn’t change he fact that standardized tests are the best thing we have for college admissions. The data is very clear that SAT scores are much more than GPAs at determining whether students are likely to succeed in college. This is even more true now that high school GPAs are very unreliable due to rampant grade inflation. Darwin was a terrible person too, but that doesn’t mean his conclusions about the theory of evolution are wrong.