Here are average SAT scores since 1980:
These scores have been adjusted for a couple of renorming and recentering changes since 1980, so they're comparable from year to year. The exception is 2017, when a scoring change was made that can't be adjusted for. Scores from 2017-2022 are presented with no adjustments.
It's an odd thing: SAT scores were generally up all the way through 2005 (a little bit for verbal, a lot for math), when they suddenly started to drop. This drop affected both verbal and math scores and both male and female students by similar amounts.
So what happened in 2005?
First YouTube video was uploaded in April 2005. Brain rot ensues.
See for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNQXAC9IVRw
Start making more money weekly. This is valuable part time work for everyone. The best part ,work from the comfort of your house and get paid from $10k-$20k each week . Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. Visit this article
for more details.. https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com/
So, is social media the lead of the aughts?
Hey, editing works. Thanks Kevin!
As others have noted, the number of test takers has increased, so more marginal students are now in the pool. I can't find data for 2005, but in 2010, 1.5M students took the SAT, whereas in 2019, 2.2M took it. Moreover, the demographics of test takers changed. Foe example, in 2010, 74% listed English as "first language learned," whereas in 2019, only 63% did. In 2010, 54% of test takers were white and 11% were Asian; in 2010 the pcts were 43/10.
2010 https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/research/2010-total-group-profile-report-cbs.pdf
2019 https://reports.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/2019-total-group-sat-suite-assessments-annual-report.pdf
The changes in demographics seems to have engendered an instance of Simpson's Paradox. Data here indicates that math scores for "all students" dropped 4 points from 2005-2010, but the only subgroup that dropped that much is Puerto Ricans and Native Americans. It is even more stark from 2000-2010 in math. "All students" showed no change, yet every subgroup increased other than "other Hispanic" : https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_153.asp
Maine received permission to use SAT as its broad-based assessment for NCLB purposes in math and language, in place of its earlier in-state developed MEA (Maine Educational Assessment), in IIRC 2006, which continued to be used for science.
As a result, the number of students taking it increased substantially, and of the students added to the test-taking pool there were no consequences for indifferent, or worse, performance.
DId any other states broaden their pools of test-takers around that time?
The percent of students going onto college has also been going up--so more students taking tests.
High school demographics has also been changing. More students now live in states that have typically not done was well as other states.
Yes, a LOT of states are now giving the SAT to all students. And in the states that don't do it, a lot of schools are just giving it to everyone. So the test population today is not comparable to the more self-selected population of college-bound students in the past.
They got as dumb as us! Haha.
I think the key question is not what happened in 2005, but what happened shortly before that, since real effects over time usually have a lag.
The answer: Bush's No Child Left Behind was signed into law in 2002 letting States do whatever they wanted with Federal money for education.
No Child Left Behind did the opposite of that. States were forced by the federal government to give standardized tests every year, to set standards for those tests, and to punish schools who did not meet benchmarks. Accountability to poorly written standards is the centerpiece of NCLB and its ugly stepchild Race to the Top. Those federal laws were horrible, though part of their horror was due to the decisions by all governors to set high standards for all children that were ridiculous.
I think that, ironically, both you and Solar are right. The states were free to squander the money however they wanted but they were also required to constantly test students (which limited the scope of what could be taught to whatever was on the test). So, the worst of both worlds.
Will be interesting to see what the move to test-optional and test-blind admissions will mean for who takes the SAT and how they do. UC, Cal State, Caltech have moved in that direction. MIT, otoh, is going the other way, requiring applicants to submit test scores again. One anecdotal note from U Mich's experience going test-optional (iirc): most applicants now do not submit scores, but large majority of those accepted had submitted scores.
...most applicants now do not submit scores, but large majority of those accepted had submitted scores.
I figured that's how it would shake out for the test score "optional" schools.
Test Edit
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I am now making over $15k every month just by doing an easy lok j0b 0nline! I KNOW YOU NOW MAKIG MORE DOLLARS online from $28 k I,TS EASY ONLINE WORKING JOBS…
Just copy and paste………………. richsalary.com
So, who's this "Mike" supposed to be? And why has Eve been banned yet, much less dorarej224?
Does anybody read these comments, besides the non-admin commenters themselves?
I've been wondering for a while why there is not a report button.
Hey look at that… my SAT score are off charts!
Heh. Same here. Makes you kind of worry about all the rest, right?
Right. Kinda spooky.
Given the shallow downward trend in Verbal you might also ask what happened circa 1985.
The top scores on the verbal and the math are each 800, right? Those numbers, even at their maxima, seem depressingly low.
Good point. 530 out of 800 (top score) is 66%. Why create a test with an average score that is a grade D- in any other scholastic setting considered acceptable? I don't see the logic.
Edit test.
It is to maximize spread. Scores are between 200 and 800, and the mean is supposed to be around 500. If the mean is near the top, then it is difficult to see which students are significantly above average.
That means that the mean score of around 500 is 62.5%. That tells us many test takes got more than a third of the questions wrong. Yes, there are those who score very high, but they are the exception.
If the purpose of the test is the show there is a small number of smarty pants they succeeded.
The numbers do not correspond to a percentage. https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-to-calculate-sat-score
Possibly reading instruction changes may have affected verbal scores. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2023/02/09/misreading-the-cues-sold-a-story-emily-hanford/
Maybe it is public charter schools. https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/a-closer-look-at-charter-school-characteristics
We boomers learned 'readin, 'riting, and 'rithmetic. The majority of us did not go to college.
Now its go to college - get heavily indebted and spend what seems to be an eternity paying off those college debts while at the same time affording a house, decent car, eating and generally keeping up with the Joneses.
But one thing is certain. We've gotten to the point where numbers have become important to us all. Higher numbers of colleges students, higher SATs, and so on.
We keep changing the tests in trying to get the results we think we need.
Please teach our kids and grand kids how to think and learn instead of trying to teach them What to think and what to learn.