Distribution of SAT Math
Scores of College Students
How Whining Pays Off
Wainer, Howard; Steinberg,
Linda S., Sex Differences in Performance on the Mathematics Section of the Scholastic
Aptitude Test: A Bidirectional Validity Study. Harvard
Educational
Review; v62 n3 p32336 Fall 1992
"Matching almost 47,000 men and women on type of math course taken and grade
received, women scored about 33 points lower on the Scholastic Aptitude TestMathematics
than men who had taken the same course and received the same grade."
At the 8th grade level, girls in the US score 0.31 standard
deviations higher than boys in PISA reading (513 vs. 488). By 12th grade, as
measured by SAT verbal, boys have a slight 0.18 standard deviation advantage
over girls (420 vs. 438). But after college, the gender gap in verbal skills as
measured by GRE verbal (512 vs 484) gives males a 0.28 standard deviation
advantage over females, on par with their 0.35 standard deviation advantage on
SAT math.
SAT Math scores of half of the boys were higher than the
highest scoring one quarter of girls. 
SAT Math scores of two thirds of the
girls were lower than boys who got "D"s. 
SAT Math scores of almost half of the
girls were lower than all of the groups of boys. 
None of the girl's groups scored in
the range of boys
who got A's. 
None of the girl's groups scored in
the range of boys
who got B's. 
One quarter of the girls scored in
the range of boys
who got C's. 
Almost half of the girls (45%) of them scored
lower than boys who
got F's. 
Math tests simply present mathematical facts to students to measure how well
they can solve problems, and cannot be designed to "discriminate against" women,
Blacks, Hispanics, nor Asians (particularly Asian men who score higher than the
socalled privileged White men). The fact that 51% of college boys can solve
problems ( and thus get A's and B's in college math) which no girls can solve,
not even those who get A's in college math, means just thatno American girl
can solve problems that at least half of American boys have proven on SAT math
tests that they CAN solve. All math problems are representative of how well a
citizen can solve problems at school, at work, in science, in politics, and in
life.
Howard Wainer in a study "Sex Differences in Performance on the Mathematics
Section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test: A Bidirectional Validity Study",
published in the Harvard Educational Review; v62 n3 p32336 in the Fall 1992,
which included 46,920 college men and women, found that women were awarded
letter grades in college which were two to four letter grades higher than men
with equivalent math skills:
Boys who got A's scored higher than 592 while girls who got A's scored between
549 and 574, an average of 31 points lower, in the same range as boys who got
C's, a two letter grade penalty for boys.
Boys who got D's scored in the same range as girls who got B's, between 532 and
548, a two letter grade penalty for boys.
Boys who flunked scored between 524 and 531, an average of 20 points higher than
girls who scored between 493 and 523 and got C's, a three letter grade penalty
for boys.
Girls who got D's scored between 476 and 492, 30 points lower than boys who
scored between 524 and 531 and flunked, a four letter grade penalty for boys.
Even after decades of invidious discrimination against White men under thee
guise of affirmative action, also known by the more descriptive and honest
phrase "affirmative discrimination" in England
and India, no woman has an understanding of math which is higher than a male who
gets a C in math. The 28% of the boys in this study who got B's had better math
skills than all of the girls and the 22% who got A's had even better math skills
than them. This means that each year, tens of thousands of male college students who get B's, and
tens of thousands more
who get A's, have an understanding of math which no female college student
has ever has demonstrated
on credible and objective tests in spite of being awarded A's and B's by
our vaunted college math professors.
Such a level of demonstrated math skills is far too low to justify the
expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a college degree in "STEMS",
as there cannot possibly be any return on the investment, much less will they
ever be able to earn enough to pay off their student loans. To encourage women
to go into these fields is the height of hypocrisymaking women feel good about
their math skills just for the sake of getting their education dollars is FRAUD.
The REAL fraud, though, is against males [not to mention we the taxpayer who
is on the hook for trillions of dollars in defaulted student loans] who COULD
HAVE benefitted from a college education, because almost two thirds of college
admissions are females who CANNOT benefit.
Of these 46,920 college students, only 5,144 or 11% of
them were girls who got A's, who scored on SAT math in the same range as the
6,931 boys, or 15% of them, who got C's, none of whom exhibited the math skills
of the 50.4% of the boys who got A's and B's. Not only are these best and
brightest college girls a really small and select group, but they are
outnumbered by 33% by boys who got C's in math. All the rest of the girls in
this study, 76% of them, scored lower than boys who got D's, and 45% scored
lower, significantly lower, than boys who got F's, and thus are nowhere close to
having any chance of success in a math career.
This gender gap is HUGE, and much more significant, than a casual review of a
putative 34 point gap between males and females in SAT math scores (as well as
ACT, NAEP, GRE, TIMSS, and PISA scores) would reveal to you. How many of these
much more highly qualified males have been denied jobs because of affirmative
action and the Equal Pay Act which resulted in the least qualified females
becoming 80% to 90% of the teachers who cannot possibly teach math to our
children, caused women to be almost two thirds of college admissions, and turned
all our industries upside down and inside out?
There's nothing fair about this systemic, invidious discrimination against our
boys, and it's even less fair to girls who are being LIED to about their great
math skills, and about their opportunity to become mathematicians. How can it be
explained that so many of our educators, AND PARENTS, would allow such
discrimination against our boys to go on, and be allowed to go on for so long?
As a parent of both boys and girls, I truly detest such gendermandering, and
being called a racist or a sexist by almost all of our "educators" I've
discussed this with, who aren't parents and don't even know the differencemuch
less do they care to learn the differenceis proof positive that teaching
gender equality has become a religion to them.
But not even that comes close to explaining how this happenedhow the land of
the free, home of the brave, has become the land of the male pussy. The fact
that almost two thirds of our boys who would normally have been in our once fine
universities have been displaced by a student body which is now approaching two
thirds females means that a majority of our MOST qualified students (males who
would have gotten A's in math) are no longer admitted, period. And to have this
many female college students means that a majority of them have math skills
which are SIGNIFICANTLY lower than males who FLUNK math. This of course has had
a very serious adverse effect on our economy.
In the REAL world [that is, a world without affirmative action as our nation
started out and still SHOULD be], a woman who gets an A in college math but
scores lower on SAT math than a male who gets a C, has no future in high tech
(or "STEMS", a truly despicable and misleading term). Neither does the male,
other than as a male secretarywho most CEO's now find to be more desirable
than the old concept of a female secretary. And those with such low skills in
math have no way of knowing just how important such skills are in today's
society, so let's try to explain it to them. A basic knowledge and understanding
of calculus and algebra, and probability and statistics is MANDATORY to being
able to understand Economics 101, not to mention the ability to critique a news media which
has such a leftist bias that not even that is sufficient in some cases, not to
mention the complex presentation we are now faced with in this presidential
election. Not even many of us with a basic understanding of Economics 101 can
keep up with the brilliance of Trump's plan to balance the budgetand it's for
sure that this will take at least a B level of understanding of math, which we
now know that no American woman has, least of all Hitlery. Now you know why you
have always thought she is a complete IDIOTSHE IS.
Where is the other proof that our educators are dumber than rocks? While THEY
are arguing that algebra is too difficult to be a requirement for college
graduation, most other educators of the world have implemented the REQUIREMENT
that their high school students graduate with CALCULUS behind them (and 99% of
the high school students in most of our "economic global competitors" do just
THAT now).
If we were to establish that only those with a male A level understanding of
math could improve their skills and income by going to college, or to vote, then
only men would go to college and vote. If we were to establish that this
required at least a male B level understanding of math, then also only men would
go to college or vote. If we were to set the limit at a male C level/female A
level, then men would be 80% and women would be 20% of those going to college or
voting.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_303.70.asp?current=yes
There are currently 5,940,000 girl and 4,861,000 boy students in our
undergraduate schools, and if the math skills of these girls follows the pattern
of the Howard Wainer study, then 2,678,940 girls have math skills equivalent to
boys who flunk out of math, 1,799,820 have math skills equivalent to boys who
get D's, and 1,455,300 have math skills slightly lower than boys who get C's.
None of them have math skills which would qualify them to follow a career in
STEMS, while more than half of the 5,940,000 boys who were rejected (or
2,970,000 of them) to make room for these girl students, WOULD have benefitted
from a college education and a career in STEMS.
Why would we as a society do this at a time when high tech careers are so
valuable, and so profitable, just as we're at the cutting edge of the
technological revolution? It's like cutting our nose off to spite our face. If
you ever wondered why we can't make our own shoes, much less our own
semiconductors and electronics, and instead must go all the way to China to have
them made for us, then now you know why.
12th grade TIMSS 1995
Norway boys 594
Sweden boys 589
Lebanon girls 554 [in 2008]
Netherlands boys 553 [in 2008]
Norway girls 544
Denmark boys 542
Germany boys 542
Lebanon boys 541 [in 2008]
Sweden girls 540
Russia boys 575
Australia boys 532
Switzerland boys 529
Iran boys 510 [in 2008]
Russia girls 509
Cyprus boys 509
Latvia boys 509
Canada boys 506
Czech boys 503
Denmark girls 500
Greece boys 495
US NSF physics boys 494
Australia girls 490
Germany girls 479
France boys 478
Austria boys 479
Cyprus girls 470
Greece girls 468
Latvia girls 467
Canada girls 459
US NSF physics girls 453
France girls 450
Switzerland girls 446
Italy boys 446 [in 2008]
US boys 439
Czech girls 419
Austria girls 408
US girls 405
Philippines boys 386 [in 2008]
Philippines girls 337 [in 2008]

Both Boys with an SAT score of 587 and Girls with an SAT score of 553
(34 points lower) received a grade of 'A'. 

Boys with an SAT score of 570 (17 points higher than Girls who got an
'A') got a grade of 'B'. 

Boys with an SAT score of 549 (only 4 points lower than girls who got an
'A') got a 'C'. 

Boys with SAT scores of 524 got an 'F' while girls with the same SAT
score got a 'B'. 

Boys who got an 'F' had SAT scores 60 points higher than girls who got
an 'F' (524 vs 464). 
Percentile 
Letter Grade 
3 
5 
10 
25 
50 
25 
10 
5 
3 
Standard Deviation 
Boys 
A 
587 
588 
590 
595 
600 
605 
610 
612 
613 
10 
Boys 
B 
570 
571 
573 
578 
583 
588 
593 
595 
596 
10 
Boys 
C 
549 
550 
552 
557 
561 
566 
570 
572 
573 
9 
Boys 
D 
530 
531 
532 
536 
540 
544 
548 
549 
550 
8 
Boys 
F 
524 
524 
525 
527 
528 
530 
531 
532 
532 
3 
Girls 
A 
553 
554 
556 
561 
566 
571 
576 
578 
579 
10 
Girls 
B 
525 
526 
528 
533 
538 
543 
548 
550 
551 
10 
Girls 
C 
499 
500 
502 
508 
513 
519 
524 
526 
527 
11 
Girls 
D 
468 
470 
472 
478 
484 
490 
496 
498 
500 
12 
Girls 
F 
464 
464 
465 
467 
468 
470 
471 
472 
472 
3 
The difference in median SAT Math scores between
boys who got As and:
 Girls who got Fs was 132 points.
 Girls who got Cs was 87 points.
 Boys who got Fs was 68 points.
 Boys who got Cs was 38 points.
 Girls who got As was 34 points.
 Boys who got Bs was 17 points.
The gap between boys who got Fs and girls who got Fs
was almost as big as the gap between boys who got As and boys who got Fs.
A) The women's group's mean score was 30.7% higher
than women nationally while the men's group's was 25.8% higher than men nationally.
This small but important 4.9% difference which suggests that the women's group was not as
representative of women as the men's group was of men.
B) There were 4,864 or 18.8% fewer women in the study than men. The smaller sample
size for women may be because there were not enough highscoring women available.
Had the sample sizes been equal, the differences between the sexes would have been
larger. The sample sizes for women in Advanced Math were one half (1/2) that for men
and for Calculus were 40% lower than that for men while the sample sizes of women in
Remedial Math and Regular Math were larger. Since women's Remedial Math scores were
48.3% lower than their Advanced Math scores, increasing the sample size by 23.1% with
students whose average scores were 48.3% lower would have reduced women's "Grade
Means" from 536 to 517, which is 19 points or another 5.7%.
Editor's Note: A more significant outcome of this
study than the 33 point difference in SAT Math scores of math majors is that 50.4% of the
males score higher than all of the female groups.
1) The median SAT Math scores of all SAT test takers in 1993 were 502 for men and 457 for
women.
2) The "base score" for SAT Math tests is 200the difference between men and
women is (502 minus 457) divided by (457 minus 200) or 17.5%.
3) SAT scores accurately predict college grades as well as a future employee's math
competence.
SAT Math Score 
Number of Boys 
Number of Girls 
Letter
Grade 
Median SAT
Math score 
475below 

1872 
F 
468 

476492 

2235 
D 
484 

493523 

5394 
C 
513 

524531 
3030 

F 
528 

532548 
2881 
6383 
D,B 
540, 538 

549574 
6931 
5144 
C,A 
561, 566 

575591 
7357 

B 
583 

592up 
5693 

A 
600 

Totals 
25,892 
21,028 


46,920 
With this proof that men who are equally qualified
as women are given grades which are two letter grades lower than grades given to women,
consider the following feminazi hogwash from Dartmouth, a once fine American university http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/student_projects/morgen/node1.html
In 1992, Howard Wainer and Linda Steinberg of the ETS released the results of their own
follow up study. In this study, the researchers employed a retrospective analysis to
measure the difference between men's and women's math SAT scores. Instead of predicting
performance based on given SAT scores, these researchers took a sample of 47,000 college
men and women, according to the type of math course taken and the grade received, and then
predicted what each sex's math SAT score should be. They found that men scored, on
average, 33 points higher on math retrospectively while their prospective research
suggested that men outscored women by an even larger difference (Wainer, 323). The
retrospective method is of little use to the college admission process since the college
wants to predict how a student will do before he or she is accepted (328). The researchers
tried the two methods to provide different perspectives on an old problem but did not draw
inferences from the varying size of the methodical point gaps because the two methods were
in fact distinct (329, 332).
Again, the ETS researchers do not speculate on the cause of the differential but the
report is radical in that it acknowledges the abuse of the use of SAT scores and that such
abuse can be detrimental to women. The abuse includes overweighing the SAT or using it as
sole criterion in some admission processes. Also, the test is employed as a proficiency
cutoff for some college math courses and scholarships which is a potential misuse(330).
The researchers suggest three factors which could cause the differential but do not peruse
them in this study. The factors could be: that different selection mechanisms by sex
(guidance, role models, etc.), the possibility that the math SAT favors men, or that the
grading practices in first year math courses favors women (331). The researchers conclude
that despite intensive studies previously performed on these possible causes, it is
impossible to uncover the truth because of biased sampling, i.e. the impossibility of
obtaining and tracking a truly random sample. Toward the end of the report Wainer and
Steinberg pose questions to society and suggest social control in correcting the SAT bias
through external methods such as awarding equal numbers of scholarships to men and women
by creating selection pools based on sex (333).
This, from a woman who's been given every
opportunity in the world to be able to learn, who was given preferential treatment to get
her into these once fine universities, who should now be able to analyze such data with
ease, proved beyond the shadow of all doubt that she still can't get off first base.
If women do poorly on all these tests, not just the standardized tests but on the
classroom tests as well, then HOW can she justify that women are given the preferential
treatment in the classroom by teachers who use every trick in the book to raise their
grades by two letter grades? It's not proof that girls understand the subject matter
just because they "work harder", or "boys don't let girls participate in
class discussions", or "girls have better attendance records"it's just
the opposite. These test prove that affirmative action DOES NOT WORK, and nothing
less. The inequity that these feminazis are willing to live with is proof enough
that they should never, ever have been allowed to vote.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/chance_news/recent_news/chance_news_2.10.html
Sex differences in Performance on the mathematics section of the Scholastic Aptitude
Test: A bidirectional validity study. Harvard Educational Review, Fall 1992. Howard
Wainer and Linda S. Steinberg. This study by Educational Testing Service researchers
reviews the literature concerning the difference between men and women on the mathematics
SAT tests and reports on their own study. They compare SATM scores for men and women with
the same grades and also grades for men and women with the same SATM scores. They show
that women consistently do about thirty points lower on these tests. Since women do as
well as men in college this raises questions about the proper use of the SATM exams in
college admission and competitive scholarship programs. They discuss some possible
solutions ranging from giving women extra points to doing nothing. The authors favor
continuing to try to understand what is going on.
http://www.campbellkibler.com/Overcoming_Anxiety.htm
When using test scores to decide who to admit or who is most likely to succeed, the
obvious thing to do is use the same cut off score for everyone, to judge everyone on the
same standard. However, sometimes the obviously "fair" choice is not fair.
For example the SAT:M tends to overpredict men’s grades in college math
courses and underpredict women’s grades. When women and men have the same SAT:M
score, the women tend to have higher grades in college math courses than do the men, even
when the courses are the same (Wainer and Steinberg, 1992). To have the SAT:M
be equally successful in predicting women and men’s first year college math grades
you could use a lower cut off score for women than for men or you could revise the test so
that the same score predicts equally well for women and men.
Currently, grades are the predictor variable, how success in high school, college, or
graduate school is defined for admissions testing even though at all education levels,
women tend to have better grades than men. There may be better ways of defining success
than grades but if definitions of success are changed then so must be the tests used to
predict that success. In measurement sometimes being unequal means being more
accurate and thus more fair.
Hi Christian,
Can you explain exactly how the new 2.5 point gap in the
2012 study is the same as the old 28 point gap in the
2002 study?... Mathematically the old 2002 gap of 28
points out of 500 is 56% and is statistically
significant...However in the new 2012 study a 2.5 point
gap out of 155 is only 12% and thus not statistically
significant... The study even said its basically the
same verbal performance for men and women in the 2012
study. See below
Performance Statistics on the GRE revised General Test,
by Gender
Table 2 shows similar performance on the GRE Verbal
Reasoning measure for men and women.
However, on average, higher scores are observed on
Quantitative Reasoning for men than for women. Women
performed better on Analytical Writing than men.

"Can you explain exactly how the new 2.5 point gap
in the 2012 study is the same as the old 28 point
gap in the 2002 study?"
The most accurate way to compare the gender gaps of
these two very different scales is to measure it in
standard deviations. On the new scale the 2.5 point
gender gap for Whites has a standard deviation of
7.6 which means the gap is 0.35 SD. The gender gap
for verbal for Whites on the old scale was 512  484
= 28 points / standard deviation of 103 = 0.27 sd.
OOPS, correction. The new gender gap is MUCH bigger.
In fact it's even bigger than the 33 point gender
gap in SAT math referred to in the Howard Wainer
study, which is only 0.31 sd.
Wow. Who woulda thunk. Thanks for keeping me honest.

Hi Christian,
If you look at it from standard deviations I
agree. However I am not sure that is the most
accurate way to measure because my problem with
the whole verbal scoring methodology in both of
the years we are looking at, 2002 and 2012 in
the GRE studies, is they are unlike math and are
measured more subjectively... I agree though
that they are playing around with the scoring to
get a more "equal" outcome for sure...Anyway...
Math is indisputable in either case but I can't
go with the verbal being all that significant
because to be honest I really cant think of a
way to measure it unless it was broken down and
measured separately in many separate
components...reading comprehension...vocabulary
definitions...word syntax...writing... .... The
old SAT was best for this but the new SAT is
ridiculous...
Average SAT Scores, 1972–2007
Verbal Score
Year
Male
Female
Total
1972
531
529
530
1976
511
508
509
1980
506
498
502
1984
511
498
504
1988
512
499
505
1990
505
496
500
1992
504
496
500
1994
501
497
499
1996
507
503
505
1998
509
502
505
2000
507
504
505
2002
507
502
504
2004
512
504
508
2005
513
505
508
I dont have the standard deviation for the SAT
for these years but the "comparative" difference
in verbal gender scores is minor compared to
math where the difference was huge...Men still
score higher but I dont think the SAT showed a
huge statistical significance... which BTW is...
as I am sure you know... also subjective from
110%....:)... I appreciate all your responses
but I will stay with math and men's dominance
and the verbal I just cant get there yet despite
men scoring a bit higher... BTW in my initial
post I was not clear what I meant as I was
comparing not the verbal with women being
overall better than men but because of biology
being better than they were in math in
comparison to men... My bad as verbally I was
more of a woman I guess...Lol

I think the reason the SAT verbal test has
been so politicized is to conceal what PIAAC
revealed that what we call a 98% literacy
rate is what the rest of the world calls a
44% literacy rate, compared to more than 60%
in Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, and
Sweden.
But I don't understand why you would dismiss
the millions of students who have proven
their verbal skills (or lack thereof) over
decades with GRE Verbal, particularly when
you now know that the gender gap in verbal
is even bigger than the one in math, and
when you know that their effort to
politicize GRE backfired on them?
Another thought: the gender gap in GRE
Verbal increased significantly between 1996
and 2001, from 0.257 SD to 0.276, which by
itself could be chalked up to statistical
errors. But now coupled with the 2012 test
with an SD of 0.33 it appears this increase
in the gender gap is a long term trend.
Couple that with the fact that women under
age 30 also score 20 points lower than women
over age 30 (something that is not true for
men) then we might believe all this
disinformation about the gender gap
narrowing, has a sinister purpose.

We all know the purpose of the gender
gap "narrowing" is a bias
and a political purpose of creating
"false" equality...This is not
something I disagree with however I dont
agree sd is the best way
to measure the gap. Especially when in
the GRE when the 1 point in a 7 point sd
range percentage
wise has more value due to rounding
errors than each point in a 106 point sd
range.

Hmm, again, I'm not sure what your
point is. There is no question that
using the standard deviation is the
best, and in some cases the only,
way to compare these different test
scales. A 100 point gender gap in
say TIMSS physics is meaningless
unless you know that the standard
deviation is 80, and that this gap
equals 1.25 SD. Without getting
sidetracked by a discussion about
Gaussian Distribution, we know from
the Howard Wainer study that a
gender gap of 33 SAT math points is
a gap of 0.31 SD which, even though
it sounds small, it's big enough
that HALF of the male college
students have analytical skills that
NONE of the female college students
have EVER exhibited.
Please explain what you mean by "1
point in a 7 point sd range
percentage wise has more value due
to rounding errors than each point
in a 106 point sd range", as I don't
believe this is correct.
Also, it's a mathematical fact that
the gap in GRE verbal is
significantly bigger than the gap in
SAT math, which means it's a
mathematical fact that the average
verbal skills of women compared to
men, is even lower than their
average math skills.

Standard deviations only have
significance when comparing the
same test and also using the
same point ranges, You cant use
different tests and different
point ranges (ie GRE 2002 vs
2012 as they are vastly
different tests ...as is SAT vs
GRE). The reason is one point
has greater mathematical value
in a smaller range test when
considering rounding errors of
moving up and down if comparing
it to a larger range test....
Let me give an example... Lets
say John scores 50 and Audrey
scores 47 on a 100 point test
and the standard deviation is 7.
The 3 point gap is .43 sd...
However if John scored 49.5 in
actuality and Audrey 47.4 before
rounding up and down then 2.1
point gap is .30 sd... That is a
huge over 40% difference because
of rounding up and down with a
small range test....
Now lets look at a larger range
test say 300... John scores 150
and Audrey scores 141 and the
standard deviation is 21... The
9 point gap is .43 sd again but
lets say John scored 149.5 in
actuality and Audrey scored
141.4 so now we have a 8.1 gap
and a .39 sd... A much smaller
difference of about 10% because
of rounding up and down on a
larger range test.

"Now lets look at a larger
range test say 300... John
scores 150 and Audrey scores
141 and the standard
deviation is 21... The 9
point gap is .43 sd again
but lets say John scored
149.5 in actuality and
Audrey scored 141.4 so now
we have a 8.1 gap and a .39
sd... A much smaller
difference of about 10%
because of rounding up and
down on a larger range
test."
Thanks for that
clarification.
Your analysis for a single
data point is correctbut
it cannot be applied across
millions of data points
[students] conducted over
decades, which year after
year, and student after
student, show almost
identical results on the SAT
test.
Even so, as you may know,
there's really not much
difference between .39 sd
and .43 sd, and both are
larger than the sd 0.31 sd
in the Howard Wainer study
which is all it takes for
half the college boys to
demonstrate math and
analytical and reasoning
skills that NO college girl
has ever demonstrated.
""You cant use different
tests and different point
ranges (ie GRE 2002 vs 2012
as they are vastly different
tests ...as is SAT vs GRE)"
Actually when we are
comparing standard
deviations, we can compare
different math and verbal
tests like this,
particularly GRE verbal,
where the gender gap is even
bigger than it is in SAT
math (0.35 SD vs. 0.31 SD),
which could be the
difference between an A or a
B.
iow, where college girls who
get A's in math have the
same math skills of boys who
get C's, it's possible that
girls who get A's in English
have the same verbal skills
as boys who get D's.

Hi Christian,
I agree with you on math
SAT and GRE as having a
large gap statistical
significance. But SAT
verbal is not a large
gap in my opinion and
many others.
And you cant compare
2012 vs 2002 GRE for
exactly my point that
the 2002 was a larger
range test and each
point had less
significance when
rounding up or down the
data compared to the
2012 smaller range test.

"And you cant
compare 2012 vs 2002
GRE for exactly my
point that the 2002
was a larger range
test and each point
had less
significance when
rounding up or down
the data compared to
the 2012 smaller
range test."
It's not clear why
you still claim that
after the above
explanation. In
addition, another
way to make that
comparison is to
simply convert the
new scores into the
old scores using the
following table,
which produces the
same standard
deviation (with the
one POSSIBLE
exception of a
dramatic decrease in
the verbal skills of
all American
females, and in
particular White
females).
New Score Old Score
170 800
169 800
168 800
167 800
166 800
165 790
164 790
163 780
162 770
161 770
160 760
159 750
158 740
157 730
156 720
155 700 – 710
154 690
153 680
152 660 – 670
151 640 – 650
150 630
149 610 – 620
148 590 – 600
147 570 – 580
146 550 – 560
145 530 – 540
144 500 – 520
143 480 – 490
142 460 – 470
141 430 – 450
140 400 – 420
139 380 – 390
138 350 – 370
137 330 – 340
136 300 – 320
135 280 – 290
134 260 – 270
133 240 – 250
132 220 – 230
131 200 – 210
The way to read that
is that the new
score of 170 equates
to the old score of
800.

Your methodology
is flawed in
comparing the
2012 and 2002
GRE and I
explained why
because of
rounding error
in the smaller
and larger
ranges..They are
not convertible
because of this.
I am done with
this
Christian... Let
it
go...Thanks...









