Good investment?

[Potential123]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Okay so I was looking at costs of certain Optometry schools and it seems like I would be 160-200k in depth once I graduated. I was wondering if this is a good investment? How much would I make at a starting and median salary? I am not familiar with the OAT just yet and if someone could give me what type of questions are on it would be much appreciated. Thank you.

 

[KHE]

Okay so I was looking at costs of certain Optometry schools and it seems like I would be 160-200k in depth once I graduated. I was wondering if this is a good investment? How much would I make at a starting and median salary? I am not familiar with the OAT just yet and if someone could give me what type of questions are on it would be much appreciated. Thank you.

I would not recommend you take on more than twice the starting salary of OD in TOTAL student loan debt. (including undergraduate.)

The average starting salary of an OD is around $80,000. So I would not take on more than $160,000 in total debt load. Anything more is going to really start to be a boat anchor around your neck.

 

[Jason K]

I would not recommend you take on more than twice the starting salary of OD in TOTAL student loan debt. (including undergraduate.)

The average starting salary of an OD is around $80,000. So I would not take on more than $160,000 in total debt load. Anything more is going to really start to be a boat anchor around your neck.

I think this salary estimate is a little high, but the real issue is not the average starting salary for ODs that are hired, it's the employability for new ODs, given the state of the oversupply issue.

We are necessarily going to have a larger and larger percentage of new grads, unable to find FT work. Those that do might be able to average up near 80K/yr, but the excess will be paying the same loans back with a much lower income since they won't be working FT. I see it happening already, and there are several new programs that haven't even started graduating students yet. It's going to get a lot worse.

I think anyone considering optometry right now, should be comfortable bringing home an income in the 60K to 70K range, because after they account for their loan payments, that's likely what they'll be taking home. I agree with the double your salary rule, but I think the limit for total academic debt, at least for a prospective OD, should be in the 120K to 140K range, and even that seems a little ridiculous, given what's coming. Starting income for all ODs, especially newly minted ones, will be be dropping due to simple supply and demand forces. They're going to feel the same pain that a lot of new JDs have been experiencing for some time now. It's not going to be pretty when the train wreck really starts to unfold.

 

[pinipig523]

I can tell you that 160K in total student loan debt is a heavy burden. If Jason K is right about the average starting salary to be only $80K, that's a tough pill to swallow.

My debt is around $190K. I find that it is heavy.

 

[Shnurek]

I can tell you that 160K in total student loan debt is a heavy burden. If Jason K is right about the average starting salary to be only $80K, that's a tough pill to swallow.

My debt is around $190K. I find that it is heavy.

I heard starting salaries run anywhere from $65,000 to $115,000 depending on your patient load, where you work, who you work for, if you did a residency, in what did you do the residency in.....there are a multitude of factors to consider.

 

[CL Doc]

I heard starting salaries run anywhere from $65,000 to $115,000 depending on your patient load, where you work, who you work for, if you did a residency, in what did you do the residency in.....there are a multitude of factors to consider.

There is a large range of starting incomes, but residency won't make you any more money.

 

[Shnurek]

There is a large range of starting incomes, but residency won't make you any more money.

I'd doubt that as many hiring Doctors see residency training as a plus. I guess more so it opens up your job options. I personally know of one person that did a residency and is now working for an ophtho for $115k. She wouldn't be hired if she didn't do one. Sure this case is anecdotal but making a generalized statement like that is simplistic in my opinion.

 

[CL Doc]

I'd doubt that as many hiring Doctors see residency training as a plus. I guess more so it opens up your job options. I personally know of one person that did a residency and is now working for an ophtho for $115k. She wouldn't be hired if she didn't do one. Sure this case is anecdotal but making a generalized statement like that is simplistic in my opinion.

You don't have the evidence or experience to make most of the statements you make on these forums.

Some jobs may "require" a residency, but you won't make more money with a residency. Even the VA hires ODs without residency training.

Your one example doesn't mean anything. $115,000 in New York is probably the equivalent of $70 or $80k or less anywhere else.

Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so.

You won't find legitimate data published anywhere to support your claim.

 

[mclem222]

I'd doubt that as many hiring Doctors see residency training as a plus. I guess more so it opens up your job options. I personally know of one person that did a residency and is now working for an ophtho for $115k. She wouldn't be hired if she didn't do one. Sure this case is anecdotal but making a generalized statement like that is simplistic in my opinion.

Just because she did a fellowship..has nothing to do with her salary..she couldve been paid 115 even without the fellowship...correlation doesn't mean causation...Anecdotal evidency is just that anecdotal. I hired someone in 04' who had a fellowship for 70K with bonus and they made 78K that year. On the flip side I hired someone 8 years ago for 110K without a fellowship..

 

[Shnurek]

She was hired in NJ. So you guys are saying that residency training is meaningless for compensation in optometry?

 

[Jason K]

She was hired in NJ. So you guys are saying that residency training is meaningless for compensation in optometry?

Residency-trained docs in medicine, dentistry, and podiatry get paid higher salaries because they bill for procedures that give higher reimbursments. Residency-trained ODs do not because we are not considered specialists and we all generally use the same codes. That is why they are not likely to be paid more when hired. This is why you should learn the details of what you're talking about before making claims that originate in your own mind without a basis in reality. It might seem logical that a residency-trained OD would be paid more, but when you understand why a specialist in other fields is paid more, you'll understand why this isn't the case in optometry.

I would never argue that a good residency or fellowship doesn't make you a better clinician, but it is not going to pad your wallet - instead, it will actually cost you tens of thousands of dollars since you'll lose pay during your residency year while you pay interest on student loans.

Personally, I don't even think optometric residencies should be called "residencies" because they are not a parallel to medical, dental, or podiatric residencies which turn out a specialist at the conclusion of training. I don't know what to call it, but it's not a residency, in my opinion.

 

[coppertopdoc]

Good investment? Nope. Unless your parents pay for school and you get a sweet buy-in deal in their practice. Even then, private practice is being impacted by pressures from commercial optometry, online sales, oversupply, etc..

I have practiced in several different modes of practice (private, group, ophthalmology, tribal clinic) and seen the downside to them all. I enjoy the pathology in the OMD setting and the tribal clinics but you have to be an employee. I have peers in private practice that have communicated to me how difficult it is becoming.

The R.O.I. (return on investment) in optometry is NOT good. I have had the discussion with my children about not going into optometry. If they really want to go into health care I have told them the R.O.I. would be better in medical or dental school. I have friends that are D.O., M.D., O.M.D., D.D.S. and they have all commented. I would say the dentists are the happiest.

That's before we even have a discussion about the AOA leadership, ABO, etc.

Just my .02!

 

[CL Doc]

She was hired in NJ. So you guys are saying that residency training is meaningless for compensation in optometry?

Yes

 

[KHE]

I'd doubt that as many hiring Doctors see residency training as a plus. I guess more so it opens up your job options. I personally know of one person that did a residency and is now working for an ophtho for $115k. She wouldn't be hired if she didn't do one. Sure this case is anecdotal but making a generalized statement like that is simplistic in my opinion.

In my opinion, the value of most optometric residencies in traditional optometric practice is that it generally allows you to keep patients in your office for longer. I can say with certainty that the amount of patients I referred out in the early years of practice was far far less than my non-residency trained cohorts that I worked along side of.

But as always, and I'm only speaking for private practice here, your value is directly related to how much money you can earn for the office. If I think you can make me more money and you're not residency trained, I would hire you over a residency trained doc every time.

 

[Meibomian SxN]

Good investment? Nope. Unless your parents pay for school and you get a sweet buy-in deal in their practice. Even then, private practice is being impacted by pressures from commercial optometry, online sales, oversupply, etc..

I have practiced in several different modes of practice (private, group, ophthalmology, tribal clinic) and seen the downside to them all. I enjoy the pathology in the OMD setting and the tribal clinics but you have to be an employee. I have peers in private practice that have communicated to me how difficult it is becoming.

The R.O.I. (return on investment) in optometry is NOT good. I have had the discussion with my children about not going into optometry. If they really want to go into health care I have told them the R.O.I. would be better in medical or dental school. I have friends that are D.O., M.D., O.M.D., D.D.S. and they have all commented. I would say the dentists are the happiest.

That's before we even have a discussion about the AOA leadership, ABO, etc.

Just my .02!

+1👍

 

[yollusyollus]

Residency training is worthless. It lets you go work in a school, which is dumb because it pays about 60k starting, or a VA, which is nice because it pay as much as 90-100k starting as a GS12 step 10 in certain locales. Other than that its kind of pointless.

About referring out: If you don't want to refer out, don't. Make sure you study extra in school and keep reading tons of stuff after graduate so you dont screw up and look stupid and get sued. Plus, look at tons of pictures online, and read all the ophtalmology textbooks. Don't give me that bullocks about "its the experience itself that counts...."... a average residency at a VA gives you about 3000-4000 patient encounters at the high end and a school based one maybe a half that. About 90% of those are routine eye exams in either case so you're looking at maybe 300-400 "learning" cases, which if you read about 10 case studies and papers a day for a year your effective experience would vastly outstrip them easily. Or go and read the medical records while you're in school to see all the plans and assessments. I dont understand why more people don't do this.

I know plenty more than a lot of residency trained folks about ocular disease to the extent that an optometrist can do anything about it, and I know way more optics than most of em too. I didn't do a residency and my personal opinion is that anyone who does one is simply dodging the poor job market currently and putting it off for another year.

 

[Jason K]

About referring out: If you don't want to refer out, don't. Make sure you study extra in school and keep reading tons of stuff after graduate so you dont screw up and look stupid and get sued. Plus, look at tons of pictures online, and read all the ophtalmology textbooks.

This has to be one of the most terrifying posts I've read in a long time. Please make sure you're maxed out on your med/mal, dude. If you think you can look up information online and craft yourself into a House, O.D., you're going to be in for a spanking....very likely from an old guy wearing a black robe, wielding a wooden hammer.

I'm all for ODs referring out only when necessary, but you sound like a 12 year old who just got a hold of dad's shotgun from the locked gun cabinet.
Have you worked in CLDoc's [correction - mclem's] office in the past, by any chance? You sound a lot like his former shoot-from-the-hip associate who threw antibiotics on an amoebic keratitis patient for three weeks.

Don't give me that bullocks about "its the experience itself that counts...."...

Did I actually just read this? Shnurek, are you morphing into someone else now? Has it really come to that?

.....and most importantly.... what on earth is a "bullocks?"

 

[yollusyollus]

This has to be one of the most terrifying posts I've read in a long time. Please make sure you're maxed out on your med/mal, dude. If you think you can look up information online and craft yourself into a House, O.D., you're going to be in for a spanking....very likely from an old guy wearing a black robe, wielding a wooden hammer.

I'm all for ODs referring out only when necessary, but you sound like a 12 year old who just got a hold of dad's shotgun from the locked gun cabinet.
Have you worked in CLDoc's office in the past, by any chance?



Did I actually just read this? Shnurek, are you morphing into someone else now? Has it really come to that?

.....and most importantly.... what on earth is a "bullocks?"

This has got to be one of the most hilarious posts I've read in a long time. Who is this JasonK guy... sounds like is he some sort of 50 year old fat dude with a english major whose crowning achievment is getting a B- in the "Using Metaphors 101" class in undergrad and is now trying to create some sort of victim narrative on the optometry forum.

Tell me, whats your training? Are you even an optometrist? Flunk NBEO part 1 two or three times? Why you so sour? Are you trying to tell me that it takes an entire year of super secret optometric residency training to read an OCT?

Kid, it's pretty telling to everyone on here that the person who thinks it requires 1 year of residency (which in most schools consists a large part in explaining to third years what cataracts are) in order treat ocular disease is also the one spewing bull**** about how self-study is pointless.

Let me guess, you were one of those residents who got a boner ever time you saw a corneal infiltrate and had the chance to gather around all the students and explain in hushed whispers how you were going to apply steroids (a truly dangerous eyedrop which should only be used by residency trained medically certified optometric glaucoma specialists) and then fantasized all night about how much your vast intelligence and clinical experience impressed that cute fourth year. That's you isn't it? The idiot resident that all the people talked behind their backs about before being fired for improper conduct.... isn't that why you have all that spare time to come on here?

Funny kid.

 

[Shnurek]

He is just a lost cause. Just place him on ignore. He will metaphor you to death and will not stop arguing.

 

[Jason K]

This has got to be one of the most hilarious posts I've read in a long time. Who is this JasonK guy... sounds like is he some sort of 50 year old fat dude with a english major whose crowning achievment is getting a B- in the "Using Metaphors 101" class in undergrad and is now trying to create some sort of victim narrative on the optometry forum.

Wrong, I got an A+ in "Using metaphors 101."

....oh, and I was in the low to mid 700s on all three parts........wait for it........on the first sitting. Just a little nugget for you to snack on. I can assure you that I would have had chunks of you in my stool in both the classroom and the clinic if we were in school together.

Would you care to know my SAT scores as well? They're really impressive. Also, I have amazing fashion sense, awesome hair, and a wife that my teenage neighbors drool over. Let's be honest, though, I could lose a few. But you know what, when your wife's hot and she thinks your slight beer gut is "kind of cute," it really takes the fun out of trying to lose it.

There, I rarely self-promote, but I just figured I'd get it all out in one post.

One more little morsel to chew on.....all of the people I know who work for or have worked for AB were in the bottom of their class. Just something to think about. Since you seem to have struggled with prescribing glasses, something most ODs would probably agree is not terribly difficult (if you were well trained,) I'd say my assumptions are probably in line.

 

[thecgrblue]

He is just a lost cause. Just place him on ignore. He will metaphor you to death and will not stop arguing.

You've gotta applaud his creativity.

 

[Optogal]

There is a large range of starting incomes, but residency won't make you any more money.

I'd have to say that if a residency makes you, all things equal, more competitive in the optometric hiring workforce, then a residency will lead to a higher salary. I'm not saying by how much, or whether it was a good R.O.I. or whatever, but if everything else is equal, then yes it will lead to a higher salary because that person will have more choices of jobs, and all things being equal, they will take the higher salary.

In other words, I can accept the "anecdote" of a residency-trained OD who got a job with an OMD BECAUSE of their residency at face value. Perhaps I'm not cynical enough, but I have worked too.

 

[yollusyollus]

Wrong, I got an A+ in "Using metaphors 101."

....oh, and I was in the low to mid 700s on all three parts........wait for it........on the first sitting. Just a little nugget for you to snack on. I can assure you that I would have had chunks of you in my stool in both the classroom and the clinic if we were in school together.

Would you care to know my SAT scores as well? They're really impressive. Also, I have amazing fashion sense, awesome hair, and a wife that my teenage neighbors drool over. Let's be honest, though, I could lose a few. But you know what, when your wife's hot and she thinks your slight beer gut is "kind of cute," it really takes the fun out of trying to lose it.

There, I rarely self-promote, but I just figured I'd get it all out in one post.

One more little morsel to chew on.....all of the people I know who work for or have worked for AB were in the bottom of their class. Just something to think about. Since you seem to have struggled with prescribing glasses, something most ODs would probably agree is not terribly difficult (if you were well trained,) I'd say my assumptions are probably in line.

That is funny dude. Sorry, but I have to cut in here because you have picked the wrong person to try and compare scores to.

OAT: 400 science average, 390 AA.
NBEO: 740, 722, 730
SAT: 1590 on old system
SAT 2: 3x800 in math, english, chem
MCAT: 13/13/12 S
LSAT: 174
Opto GPA: 3.8

Two kids, wife, and $50k debt. Attended no classes except required ones entire optometry school. All on work and scholarships going to a school that costs about $30k/year. Figure yourself how much scholarship money that is. If anyone is curious and think I'm making this up, call the all big schools and ask them if such a person exists. I guarantee you that if you find the correct school (it's not that hard) you'll probably come across a professor that will say... oh yea, that guy.

I would caution you against assuming that a random person on this board has lower standarized test scores than yourself, or that being an optometrist is impressive to me. I've worked with people in the pharm industry that culture microbes smarter than you, kid.

Makes me laugh.

 

[CL Doc]

Have you worked in CLDoc's office in the past, by any chance?

Not sure why you're attacking me now...

Don't like the fact that I'm financially successful in private practice?

Think all rural ODs are stupid?

Must be tough being so great (SATs, NBEOs, etc) and yet being so miserable.

 

[Jason K]

Not sure why you're attacking me now...chill dude!

No attack intended! I actually screwed up and had you confused with mclem, who had a new grad associate (with an attitude likely to be similar to our newest Americas Best hero) caught in an amoebic keratitis scandal that did not end well. Proof positive that "just throwing antibiotics on an ulcer" can get you in trouble. My apologies!!

I had a guy in the past who was treating a patient with acanthameba with antibiotic drops for three weeks..didn't realize what it was..didn't ask for help...didn't tell anyone...long story short, patient went blind..the guy got canned, my practice almost got sued...learned my lesson right there...

 

[Jason K]

That is funny dude. Sorry, but I have to cut in here because you have picked the wrong person to try and compare scores to.

OAT: 400 science average, 390 AA.
NBEO: 740, 722, 730
SAT: 1590 on old system
SAT 2: 3x800 in math, english, chem
MCAT: 13/13/12 S
LSAT: 174
Opto GPA: 3.8

Two kids, wife, and $50k debt. Attended no classes except required ones entire optometry school. All on work and scholarships going to a school that costs about $30k/year. Figure yourself how much scholarship money that is. If anyone is curious and think I'm making this up, call the all big schools and ask them if such a person exists. I guarantee you that if you find the correct school (it's not that hard) you'll probably come across a professor that will say... oh yea, that guy.

I would caution you against assuming that a random person on this board has lower standarized test scores than yourself, or that being an optometrist is impressive to me. I've worked with people in the pharm industry that culture microbes smarter than you, kid.

Makes me laugh.

Wow, looks like I struck a nerve. You over did it a bit there big man. It would have been a little more believable if you toned it down some. Let me guess, you left out your Nobel Prize in Physics because you wanted to remain plausible? I'd bet you did around 1150 SAT, 3.2 in optometry school, and maybe something in the 600s on the SAT2. The MCAT scores was a nice touch, though. I like how you brought in the 12, just for believability. Your flaw was in the 1590, my friend. For one, you're not old enough to be on the "old system" if you're under 30, and two, you just don't communicate like someone on that level - sorry to call you out, but you have to be a little better at BS if you expect anyone to buy your garbage - and I'm not speaking of the garbage in your optical.

 

[yollusyollus]

Wow, looks like I struck a nerve. You over did it a bit there big man. It would have been a little more believable if you toned it down some. Let me guess, you left out your Nobel Prize in Physics because you wanted to remain plausible? I'd bet you did around 1150 SAT, 3.2 in optometry school, and maybe something in the 600s on the SAT2. The MCAT scores was a nice touch, though. I like how you brought in the 12, just for believability. Your flaw was in the 1590, my friend. For one, you're not old enough to be on the "old system" if you're under 30, and two, you just don't communicate like someone on that level - sorry to call you out, but you have to be a little better at BS if you expect anyone to buy your garbage - and I'm not speaking of the garbage in your optical.

Nah, was a princton review master tutor. Taught all those things, had to get the scores to get the job. Crushing standardized tests was my job. Consider calling them too and asking if they had a guy who taught all MCAT subjects and LSAT as well between 2005 and 2010. Might suprise you.

Not a flaw bud on the SAT. See wikipedia on when the system changed to new. It was 2005, a couple years after I graduated high school. Check your facts, you seem to be a little short on those.

As for communicating in a certain fashion... that one is awesome. I actually encourage you to call all the schools and add that to the other descriptions of me. You'll find out and I will be laughing. People who know me in real life are reading your posts and laughing hard right now.

It really seems to me like you've hit a bit of a wall. Someone works at America's Best and thinks its OK and gives out some objective, first hand information on how its like. You soil your panties and start hinting at your optometry school prowess, but realize that you're talking to someone who taught the guy who taught you the OAT prep course and start squealing liar. Nice move, son.

How about sharing some information about your mode of practice and helping out the optometry school grads out there with some solid info? Get over it dude, plenty of people are smarter than you. Plenty of people are smarter than me too. We all work. Answer the origianl question from first hand and reliable information, not a bunch of 10th grade english AP level hyperbole.

 

[Jason K]

Nah, was a princton review master tutor. Taught all those things, had to get the scores to get the job. Crushing standardized tests was my job. Consider calling them too and asking if they had a guy who taught all MCAT subjects and LSAT as well between 2005 and 2010. Might suprise you.

Not a flaw bud on the SAT. See wikipedia on when the system changed to new. It was 2005, a couple years after I graduated high school. Check your facts, you seem to be a little short on those.

As for communicating in a certain fashion... that one is awesome. I actually encourage you to call all the schools and add that to the other descriptions of me. You'll find out and I will be laughing. People who know me in real life are reading your posts and laughing hard right now.

The SAT "old system" was before 1995. The "old system" you're referring to, is a joke - the scores were increased a couple of hundred points.

As for your master tutorship - sorry, rough rider, your story doesn't hold water. My predictions stand - 1100s SAT, 600s SAT2, and probably single digits for the MCAT. If you were well into the genius category, you'd have a hard time only earning a 3.8 in an OD program. Also, a 400/390 on the OAT is not all that impressive these days. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[yollusyollus]

The SAT "old system" was before 1995. The "old system" you're referring to, is a joke - the scores were increased a couple of hundred points.

As for your master tutorship - sorry, rough rider, your story doesn't hold water. My predictions stand - 1100s SAT, 600s SAT2, and probably single digits for the MCAT. If you were well into the genius category, you'd have a hard time only earning a 3.8 in an OD program. Also, a 400/390 on the OAT is not all that impressive these days. Sorry to burst your bubble.

It doesn't take a genius to achieve those scores. It's called learning your undergraduate classes fairly decently and remembering the **** instead of forgetting about it, something you obviously think takes genius intellect in order to do. Not so, punk....

I took the SAT in 2003 when the cap was 1600. The max score was increased to 2400 in 2005. Check your facts. I taught this stuff. Call the PR people, a lot of them actually know me. This is going to be really funny.

Oh yeah, about not being impressed: I'm not impressed too impressed with myself either. I was fairly average in my position and plenty of people were smarter than me. There are people in test prep companies who go in and take the MCATs and LSATs year after year and achieve 99.9 percentile scores each time. These are folks who bitch about missing one or two questions on the MCAT verbal section. You know the twenty or so people that achieve 40+ MCATs each administration? A decent number of them actually work for the test prep companies. They do it for sport and it's fairly routine since private tutoring at PR pays more than medicine or law itself in most cases if you're up in the ranks.

My scores are actually not especially outstanding considering my job history. However, you are the one who thinks that 600s on the NBEO is impressive or that being "good in clinic" in optometry school is impressive. That is simply hilarious.

Final hint for you: none of them "communicate" like you do if that is some indication of intelligence on your chimp-level intelligence scale. You don't "communicate"... you're living in 10th grade english class reliving the glory days you first learned the terms "metaphor" and "simile" and how to construct a coherent paragraph. Good job. Moving on now, lets communicate... about exactly how YOUR mode of optometry practice pays and what tradeoffs there are, like the OP suggested....

 

[Jason K]

I took the SAT in 2003 when the cap was 1600. The max score was increased to 2400 in 2005. Check your facts. I taught this stuff. Call the PR people, a lot of them actually know me. This is going to be really funny.

Who mentioned the max score? The scales were changed, my friend - that's what matters, not the max. The scales were increased about 200 points in 1995. Let me walk you through it. See, if you got a 1500 in 1995 or after, it was equivalent to about a 1300 if taken the previous year. See how that works?....They also decided to allow calculators in that year.

My scores are actually not especially outstanding considering my job history. However, you are the one who thinks that 600s on the NBEO is impressive or that being "good in clinic" in optometry school is impressive. That is simply hilarious.

Ok, now you're just spiraling out of control - when did I ever say 600s were impressive? You need to read more carefully - I was referring to your SATIIs, chief. Either way, you have yet to take the NBEO yet since I'm quite certain you're a student so I think this whole comment string is pretty much a waste of time. Did you just recently go to the America's Best flypaper seminar that's pitched to students? It's always after hours and never on campus since most schools, even the new ones, won't let an AB rep on school grounds.

Final hint for you: none of them "communicate" like you do if that is some indication of intelligence on your chimp-level intelligence scale. You don't "communicate"... you're living in 10th grade english class reliving the glory days you first learned the terms "metaphor" and "simile" and how to construct a coherent paragraph. Good job. Moving on now, lets communicate... about exactly how YOUR mode of optometry practice pays and what tradeoffs there are, like the OP suggested....

You write like a 14 year-old. It's not my fault. Practice more and you'll get better.

 

[Optogal]

The SAT was recentered in 1995. For a while, "old scores" referred to pre-1995 scores. The SAT was designed to have an average of 500 per section, but the averages kept dropping and by the end of 1994, the scores for verbal and math were hovering in the 430s. So they "recentered" the curve in 1995, so an old 430 was now a 500. Anything above 1500 prior to 1994 is equivalent to basically a 1590/1600 after 1995. Back in the olden days, a perfect SAT occurred about two dozen times a year (or per sitting?) across the United States. A perfect score would be newsworthy. After 1994, not so much, at least not until 2400 (below).

More "recently" (which is still quite a few years ago apparently), the SAT added a 3rd section - also out of 800 - so the new total is 2400. So in common vernacular (SAT word??), "old" scores may mean the post-1995 but pre 2400 score. So in other words, both of you folks are correct in your references to the "old" scores you are referring to, but you aren't talking about the same thing.

 

[Jason K]

So in other words, both of you folks are correct in your references to the "old" scores you are referring to, but you aren't talking about the same thing.

Only one of us has the Chuck Norris stamp of approval, however. Therefore, "old scores" must refer to pre 1995. It's just that simple. Otherwise, I agree with what you and Wikipedia say.

 

[CL Doc]

The SAT was recentered in 1995. For a while, "old scores" referred to pre-1995 scores. The SAT was designed to have an average of 500 per section, but the averages kept dropping and by the end of 1994, the scores for verbal and math were hovering in the 430s. So they "recentered" the curve in 1995, so an old 430 was now a 500. Anything above 1500 prior to 1994 is equivalent to basically a 1590/1600 after 1995. Back in the olden days, a perfect SAT occurred about two dozen times a year (or per sitting?) across the United States. A perfect score would be newsworthy. After 1994, not so much, at least not until 2400 (below).

More "recently" (which is still quite a few years ago apparently), the SAT added a 3rd section - also out of 800 - so the new total is 2400. So in common vernacular (SAT word??), "old" scores may mean the post-1995 but pre 2400 score. So in other words, both of you folks are correct in your references to the "old" scores you are referring to, but you aren't talking about the same thing.

You sound way too intelligent to be hanging out here.

 

[Optogal]

You sound way too intelligent to be hanging out here.

That's quite flattering, particularly given the test scores acquired by some of the folks in this thread.

 

[Optogal]

NBEO: 740, 722, 730

These scores are insane. I think my total cumulative isn't even half of yours. Passing is 300 right? Or has the scoring structure changed?