DC SAT Scores Are the Best…at Being the Worst

The Class of 2005 in the District had the lowest overall average SAT score in the country, while its counterparts in Maryland and Virginia remained steady in the verbal and math sections, test scores released yesterday by the College Board show.

D.C. high schools had the lowest overall average score -- 968, according to the College Board, which owns and administers the SAT. Maryland stayed steady at last year's total of 1026, while Virginia's cumulative score was 1030, up six points from last year.

The national average was 1028, up two points from last year. The highest possible score is 1600.

Whole Wash Times bit here.

And guess what, DC spends around $12,000 per K-12 students (in the 2002-03 school year), third only to New Jersey and New Yawk. (The $12K doesn't include capital costs, btw).

Radical idea: Give every kid the $12K to spend on whatever they want. They couldn't spend it worse than what's happening now.

Comments

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

This site: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/
has several interesting analyses of test scores (SAT and others).

If you're PC it'll probably raise your blood pressure, but so far most of his statistics-based predictions have been spot-on.

[theCoach]

At least you are not comparing apples and oranges here.

Washington DC is to Virgina as ...

What a terrible Moonie Times article.

["progressive"]

We need to give them even more money! And limit their school choices! That's the only way schools can succeed!

[Timothy]

The national average is 1028? That's awful. But, still, I mean, we've got to keep all that money in schools because otherwise our children, THE CHILDREN, would suffer!

[agentalbert]

I thought a national average of 1028 sounded kinda high. Considering the minimum to get into most state schools is 800(or was when I was looking at colleges, a national mean of 1028 doesn't seem too bad.

Myself? I got a 1250. Nothing special.

[Randolph Carter]

Isn't the max on the new SATs 2400? That would make the average particularly pathetic. Regardless of all the complaints of cultural bias and the advantages gained from $1000 Kaplan courses, it's not that hard a test. The only part that goes beyond reading comprehension and common sense is the math (especially that devilish geometry). Are schools making people more stoopid?

[Timothy]

Oregon's entry requirement was just about the mean, which was about the same when I took it. I think in 2000 it may have been 1050 or so, still bad in my opinion. I got a 1360, and I didn't even really try at it (no studying, no prep), so I can't imagine it's really actually all that hard. Then again, on a scale of 400 minimum to 1600 maximum, 1000 is the dead middle so upon further reflection I guess a mean of about 1000 isn't all that surprising.

[rafuzo]

dangit progressive, you beat me to it.

But as we all know, the majority is always right, we just need more people to believe it and more money for schools will make our students so much smarter, somehow.

[joe]

TheCoach is right. I'd be more interested in comparisons to other major cities, not states.

[stayc]

Are you implying that if other major city SAT scores are comparable to DC's then there is no problem?

Also, I would say that there's no problem with a regional paper reporting the average scores for the regions they cover.

[Brian Courts]

I love how these threads turn into a chance for people to slip in their SAT scores while looking like its just an aside and pretending to be all humble about it... something like er, well I didn't try and was drunk the night before and stoned the day of and never studied for them and woke up late and missed the first half so I only managed to get a 1590, which is nothing to brag about...

Seriously, if you want us to know how well you did just post the score and don't try to play humble, especially if the score you're posting qualifies you for MENSA 🙂 (Actually I guess that stopped after 94, so technically the scores mentioned in this thread wouldn't qualify you for it unless you got those scores in 93 or earlier in which case they would - 1250 being the cutoff prior to 1994). But it's not a linear scale so one mistake people make is to think that the relative difference is the same between say 1300 and 1200 as between 1100 and 1000.

But, since HR seems to attract many people of higher-than-average intelligence I am somewhat curious, so I'll give you all an opportunity to post your score without looking like you really wanted to. 🙂 Of those who took the test before 1994, how many of you got 1250 or higher?

[Shelby]

Proof of what we've long suspected: D.C. is home to the stupidest people in the country!

Brian: took it in 1984; higher than 1250.

[Timothy]

Brian: Oh, make no mistake, I was totally bragging, I just wished I'd done better. Yeah, a lot of people did as well as I did, and a lot of folks did better, but I didn't even work at it, so HA! NEENER NEENER and all that or something.

And if Randolph is correct, which he might be because didn't they add a writing section or some BS? I know they got rid of the "racist" analogy section...if the mean is 1028 on a scale of 600 to 2400 it's about 500 points below the middle, which is sad.

[Twba]

I took the SAT back in the day and broke 1250. My father was unhappy, since I failed to top his score from way back. He was unimpressed that I did not study at all and spent the night before the test chugging brewskis and experimenting with reefer. On the other hand, I was all of fourteen years old. Let's call it a youthful mistake and move on.

[poco]

1990: V720, M580; first and only try, no studying other than in class. The math score is actually pretty good for me considering that ever since 10th grade geometry, I had to copy all my math work from the geeky guys. It's the verbal I wish I'd done better, on, oddly enough. (What, no 800?)

[Ben]

These are scores from last year, before the addtion of the writing section, so the scale tops at 1600

[nmg]

But if we let the children of DC escape from the schools with vouchers of their own, then the schools will FAIL! And the kids left behind will be stuck in FAILING SCHOOLS!

nmg

[Number 6]

I took it in 91, and was comfortably above the cut-off. That only leads me to think that Mensa set their standards way too low.

[Phil]

Since you ask, Brian: Took it in 1986, got a 1330. (640V, 690M)

[Brian Courts]

Of course I should have known this question would just be a great example of self-selection bias. But anyway, if I add myself to the pre-94 over 1250 crowd then we're 5 for 5 so far (not sure when agentalbert took it so perhaps even 6 for 6)not bad... (and there I go, so who am I to talk about sneaking stuff in - I feel dirty). Is it too early to conclude that 100% of H&R commenters qualify for Mensa? 😉 Oh, but for those of you real old-timers, 😉 for SAT's taken before 1974 I believe the cutoff is 1300.

Interestingly (at least to me) the LSAT 120-180 scale pretty much duplicates the SAT 200-800 scale for the verbal and math parts (i.e. 400=140, 500=150, etc.). The 1250 qualifying SAT score is a 625 average on the V and M sections, which just happens to correspond (with the necessary rounding) to the 163 LSAT qualifying score. When I took the LSAT 5 years after the SAT my score corresponded precisely to the average of my verbal and math scores on the SAT. After 5 years of intervening education I was in exactly the same position, relative to the Mensa qualifying score, as I had been in HS. This seems to show that there is not much you can do to change your score with studying or prep courses; it is mostly a function of IQ.

Oh, and sorry Timothy, I wasn't really trying to single you out, it was just your post and agentalbert's reminded me of previous threads about things like SAT's or GPA's where it seems everyone is looking for a way to get their score in without seeming immodest, but I was really just joking. Besides, aren't you a fellow Oregonian IIRC? So I guess my statistical survey has revealed that not only are all H&R commenters Mensa candidates, but apparently all Oregonians as well... except how would you then explain the meth-mad legislature, no self-service gas, and Ducks fans? Hmmmm, Ducks fans... yes, definitely something wrong with my sampling methodology.

[Peter Tisserand]

Okay,maybe giving people the whole $12,000 / pupil to use as they wish might make people uneasy. The teaching unions may argue that "hey, not all of that money came from that family," and "hey, some of that money *has* to pay our salaries (and dues).

So, if the tax system is like that in PA, give people who pay property taxes their money back to spend where they want. Now they're not paying in or taking out of the "community pot." Apartment dwellers can get money back from taxes equal to the percentage their unit pays the landlord.

And, as people that like to spend other's money say "if you don't have kids in school, it behooves you to provide for those that do. The money you pay will help keep kids off the street." So, with your fatter wallet, give to the school of your choice.

Teachers, for their part, will now be forced actually compete in the marketplace for position and command of salary. If you're good you make money.

Oh, wait a minute, that might make sense.
Government doesn't make cents, it steals dollars. 🙂

[poco]

Shall we mention where we applied with said scores, who rejected us and who accepted us? 😉

[joe]

1990, got 1300

1991, got 1340.

Not terribly surpirsed and Hit and Run regulars topped the average by a good spell.

[cgee]

1983, as a high school junior - 1370 (690V/680M)

1991, while working part-time for The Princeton Review as an instructor and tester - 1570 (790V/780M)

Points to ponder:
1- I am a balanced individual (lol)
2- See, the test is (was) coachable!