Hahah Metwo! Did you score a 162 on verbal? I was 161
🙂 It was my math score that was hideous hahaha. I knew that it would work out that way. I do well on verbal standardized tests, and really poorly on the math sections. I'm not hideous at math, it just takes me a very long time (in comparison to most) to work out problems, therefore I run out of time.
For now I'm also pretending the analytical section doesn't exist. I was so ridiculously nervous that I know I didn't do well. I warmed up by the second essay part, so that was probably okay, but the two together will probably yield a score that is less than desirable.
For now, until I get my percentiles, I'll stick with you Metwo. The ETS scales make me way happier than some of the other 5 scales I've seen floating around
🙂 Also, to be very honest, its just extremely frustrating to have a decent first time, taking-it-cold composite score on the new scale (307) to be told that it can mean anything from a 1090 to a 1180. That's really a big difference. Another frustrating thing was to keep hearing that the new system is weighted differently so that each point is more significant, but then to have people who scored 5-6 points lower than me on their composite end up having a higher old scale score. It just sorta felt like my semi-tiny accomplishment had been stolen from me LOL!!! However, this is probably what everyone who took it last fall felt x1000. People probably had no idea if they were coming or going.
One of the reasons for the new scales and such was that many test takers topped out on the old quant section, leading to a ceiling effect and a number of people with perfect scores that were only, I think, in the ~80-90th percentile (e.g., an 800 quant during my testing year was in the 92nd percentile). Conversely, hardly anyone ever topped out the verbal section, leading to what I would believe was a much more normal distribution (e.g., if I'm remembering correctly, I scored a 720 many years ago, which for that version of the test came in at the 98th percentile).
Because the underlying distributions are likely different, comparing percentiles is going to be the best way to directly compare new scores to old ones. It's also why some of the conversions seem a bit wonky (particularly for quant).
I knew this about the old test, which is why when my friend calculated my score with the new scale (I was driving us home) I wasn't surprised that my old scale score was lower than hers. Even though my composite new score was higher than hers, I figured it was because I had done particularly poorly in math. I knew they had "raised the bar" so to speak with the quant section, so I wasn't surprised that my low-ish math score generated a low old scale quant score. I was counting on my verbal score to make my overall composite look good
🙂 Hah. So I guess to really nail this down I'll have to wait until ETS mails me my percentiles eh?
Between the conversion charts that Im looking at, the percentiles are the same but the old scale scores are different. So, I have to guess that means that authors have been creating the conversion tables using different years? The ETS one is assembled using percentile data from the last year, August 1, 2011 and April 30, 2012.
I've noticed that between Jan. of this year and now, quite a few programs that had strict bottom end cut offs for their programs. Now they only list the median score for their accepted candidates. Mind you the programs I was looking at weren't highly competitive, but still I think there is a lot of frustration/issues with the interpretation of the new scores.
Some of my friends and I are (hopefully) going out tomorrow to either celebrate our GRE scores or drown our sorrows over it and celebrate my 21st birthday. 
