<p>xiggi Then what was the point of this thread if you weren’t trying to say that the ACT and the SAT were not in concordance with each other? At one point you stated that " adcoms at the colleges that routinely measure applicants in the high range, a new type of correlation that shows 1900 SAT = 34 ACT might not help the student". </p>
<p>Do you have any evidence for this proposition? Of course not! You have no such evidence. Your reference was to try to cast doubt about the value of the ACT compared to the SAT and suggest that the current concordance tables of ACT to SAT “a revision might be necessary”. </p>
<p>As to your question of how to “explain to TexasPG how he might interpret a score of 750M in the November 2014 in terms of corresponding to a recent ACT test?” There is a concordance table for individual SAT Math and SAT CR to ACT section equivalence as well that is published by the ACT and the College Boards. Although, the correlation is not as strong as the CR+M concordance, the relationship is still strong enough at about .80 for the individual ACT sections to individual SAT sections.</p>
<p>Again with the misinformation that I somehow suggested that “Please understand that this is not a discussion about the merit (or silliness) of retaking a 2350, but a dilemma that some students face.” Not once did I broach this subject or even imply such a thing. I merely addressed your proposition with facts that reply to your statements and make sure that kids and their parents don’t start to think that a 34 ACT is somehow equivalent to a 1900 SAT. </p>
<p>Now you are stating that you have known all along that the current concordance tables were pretty accurate which then begs the question of why you started this post in the first place if you knew that the SAT ACT concordance tables are pretty accurate. </p>