﻿ Distribution of SAT Scores-Howard Wainer

# 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 p323-36 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 Test-Mathematics 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 so-called 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 that--no 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 p323-36 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 hypocrisy--making 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 difference--much less do they care to learn the difference--is proof positive that teaching gender equality has become a religion to them.

But not even that comes close to explaining how this happened--how 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 secretary--who 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 budget--and 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 IDIOT--SHE 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.

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.

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
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
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:

1. Girls who got Fs was 132 points.
2. Girls who got Cs was 87 points.
3. Boys who got Fs was 68 points.
4. Boys who got Cs was 38 points.
5. Girls who got As was 34 points.
6. 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 high-scoring 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 200--the 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 475-below 1872 F 468 476-492 2235 D 484 493-523 5394 C 513 524-531 3030 F 528 532-548 2881 6383 D,B 540, 538 549-574 6931 5144 C,A 561, 566 575-591 7357 B 583 592-up 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 cut-off 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.

Sex differences in Performance on the mathematics section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test: A bi-directional 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 SAT-M scores for men and women with the same grades and also grades for men and women with the same SAT-M 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 SAT-M 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.

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 5-6% and is statistically significant...However in the new 2012 study a 2.5 point gap out of 155 is only 1-2% 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 1-10%....:)... 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 correct--but 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...