Crisis Communication in Asian Cultures

Abstract Crises communications vary from culture to culture. Most organisations have various methods of managing crises. Crisis communications can build or damage reputations of organisations depending on how crises communication teams handle crises.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on Crisis Communication in Asian Cultures specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The Asian culture of handling communication varies from country to country. There are those Asian countries that have handled their crises poorly. In fact, they tend to hide information from the public in case of disaster. This is the case of Japan in handling its nuclear crises. Japanese also tends not to speculate. Instead, they want to give exact information. On the other hand, countries like China and Koreas have advanced crises management to include modern social media. Issues of cultural barriers such as language may hinder communication processes. H owever, the speaker must maintain consistency with his actions and words. There are aspects of crises communications that all cultures must take into account. These include operational, ethical, behavioural, and professionalism dimensions of crisis communications. In these cases, managing crisis must be prompt, and the public, stakeholders, or victims must hear the facts. An organisation should not communicate any unclear information to the public. This implies that adequate preparation is mandatory. This calls for regular practice in crises communications. Introduction Crisis is any â€Å"situation that threatens or could threaten to cause harm to people, property, seriously interrupt business, damage reputation, and or negatively affect shared values† (Abarquez 2010). Crisis communication deals with what is happening or what has just happened and people are anxiously waiting to hear the outcomes. These situations can be any kind of â€Å"legal disputes, theft, accidents, f ire, flood or manmade disasters that we can attribute to an organisation† (Abarquez 2010). It can also be a situation whereby an organisation did not respond to a â€Å"situation in appropriate fashion before the media or the general public† (Haddow 2010). Bernstein notes â€Å"effective crisis communications are not difficult, but they require advance work in order to minimise damage† (Abarquez 2010). Slow responses lead to a greater extent of damages. The Operation scope of Crisis Communication Crisis communication team must work at regaining the lost public confidence after the damage. This decision must aim at reducing the victims and community anguish. The aim should be to restore confidence and rebuild relationship. The move to do what the community expects will reduce media coverage and negative publicity. Organisations can reduce chances of possible lawsuits and negative publicity if they act promptly and appropriately.Advertising Looking for researc h paper on communications media? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The need for crisis communications is growing rapidly due the explosion and use of social networks, which are creating so many communication channels that are threats to risk and reputation of organisations. Kim notes that Asian organisations that in the past may have been reluctant to admit the extent of a crisis now realise â€Å"technology creates such a radical transparency, and it has become pointless to be defensive and try to dismiss issues† (Kim 2007). Instead, organisations find that it is profitable to be proactive and engage people with facts of the matter. Organisations have realised that Public Relations (PR) is no longer a tool for brand promotion, but also useful in reputation protection (Haddow 2010). Asian crisis communications landscape has changed significantly due to social media. This has forced PR officers to divert their attention to the use emerging technologies and social media platforms to handle crises. Most PR firms note that they use social media with assured confidence to handle crises. Most Asian organisations are changing fast to adopt social media for PR. However, there are some which are still in the previous era. Organisations that have progressed have also noticed that the culture of face-to-face communication is essential than using social media platforms to manage crises. Ethical Dimension The public expects organisations to act with conscience and reflect ethical standards in their communications. Organisations must provide public and prompt responses regarding the situation. Issues that involve ethical dilemmas and integrity usually involve â€Å"moral questions, reasoning, and feedback† (Low 2011). Some crises may offend public values. Consequently, the organisation that is responsible must swiftly act and provide the needed responses. The organisation crisis communication channel must have the moral courage to give appropriate responses. This implies that an organisation must act on matters of principles so as to lessen the negative consequences of a morally troublesome incidence.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on Crisis Communication in Asian Cultures specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Asia consists of countries of diversities in languages. As a result, it is challenging and equally necessary to master â€Å"the language and tone of crisis communications and management with regard to a highly sensitive crisis issues† (Low 2011). We must note that what may work in French may fail to produce the same result in English. This means that the communication team must tailor their responses and avoid direct translation for best results. Still, Asian languages are so different from English, which is a subject-centric language. Therefore, crisis communications must take into account the cultur al context of languages (Low 2011). Bob Pickard notes â€Å"in East Asia the transcendent importance of ‘face’ is such that companies are reluctant to engage in peer-to-peer communications with their communities online, with fear of losing control and thus face having the effect of dampening the kind of dialogue that might help defuse a crisis situation† (Kim 2007). In the West, lawyers are proactive in crisis communications, particularly where apologies are necessary. However, in the East, organisations easily apologise with disregard of the possible liability and lawsuit due to admission of guilt (Skoric 2007). In the recent crises, Japanese government have tended to avoid any alarming speculation. In this context, it is evident that Asians are not likely to speculate in cases of crises. Instead, they want to deal with the actual occurrences and communicate what they observe. This observation means that Asian cultures are more rigid than the Western cultures. I n the West, people tend to speculate and communicate possibilities and estimates rather than the actual data. Japan culture tends not to deviate from the data (Skoric 2007). The Professional scope of Crisis Communication Asian countries approaches to professional PR differ significantly. There are indications that Chinese government can handle crises in appropriate manners as shown during past incidences such as the Sichuan earthquake in 2008. However, Japanese government has not embraced the idea of PR and crisis communication seriously. China responds with different communication channels such as social media. In addition, Koreans show advanced use of modern technologies for crisis communications. Under most circumstances, we can only gauge the professional conduct of PR officials with those of the industry standards and practices. This is the basis for establishing the factual claims and extent of damages and the given communications. These pieces of information are usually avail able in the industry code books for professional communications.Advertising Looking for research paper on communications media? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Asian countries have the professional capacity to handle crises communications. However, these opportunities are only available among the global professional firms. It means local firms must update their approaches to PR issues and increase their participations as most of these firms experience challenges related to the development in the industry. At the same time, the industry critics have observed that there are a number of qualified trainers who offer the best services in PR. However, some of these professionals do not have the skills needed in crises communications especially in the social media. Behaviour dimension of Crisis Communication We can only look at the effects of behaviours after the crisis. Any traces of negative publicity show possibilities of unhelpful situations during the crisis. This can work against the industry reputation as well as the involved organisation; thus, it may prove difficult to rebuild credibility and trust, or preserve reputation. Cases that inv olve several victims may attract a great deal of negative publicity. This means that the organisation must find opportunities to engage in behaviour building pattern. Therefore, organisations must plan their crisis plans to work against â€Å"any anticipated negative publicity and reduce chances of negative behaviour patterns in crisis communication† (Athey and Moody-Williams, 2003). Some of the negative behaviours an organisation may plan to counteract include arrogance, lack of concerns, minimise victim needs, blame shifting, inappropriate language, inconsistency, inflammatory statements, inadequate preparation, minimise consequences, foregone opportunities to address authorities, the public, and victims, victims’ confusion, and unwillingness to admit responsibility (Athey and Moody-Williams, 2003). Asians are shifting their crisis communication cultures to full-scale digital communication. There are emerging digital crisis simulation trainings. These programmes pres ent trainees with real-life social media situations. Majorities agree that the best way to handle a crisis communication is to use speed factor. At the same time, the information presented must be accurate. Transparency and factual information are what define successful crisis communication. Thus, it is necessary for the communication team to verify facts of the matter before any communication occurs. The field and culture of crisis communication have changed. Skoric observes that crisis communications were â€Å"defensive and reactive, with holding statements used like protective shields for keeping critics away† (Skoric 2007). However, today, crisis communications have become proactive and aggressive. In this sense, the process involves all stakeholders with continuous communication from the beginning to the end (Sandoval and Lewis, 2002). Organisations which have been passive, in their approaches to crisis communications, have noted that remaining passive in a digital age is an outmoded approach that can only worsen the situation. Thus, it is necessary to engage people, listen and provide adequate information based on consultation for continuous improvement. Crisis communications also provide opportunities for organisations to showcase their best behaviours to the victims and the general public. Managing Victims Victims result in cases where organisations involuntary create enabling severe environments for people or institutions. Victims of a crisis tend to have certain mindsets and perceptions. They may also exhibit unpredictable behaviour patterns. The resulting conditions create victims of a crisis. The organisation that is a part of the crisis must identify the expectations of the crisis victims and respond promptly and in an appropriate manner (Grabel 2000). If an organisation avoids this, then the subsequent results might not be favourable as the already existing situation. Under some circumstances, victims tend to resist the best available alt ernatives or reasonable offers, engage the media to communicate emotional tales, or call for high-profile lawsuits. This process may also involve authorities, disgruntled former staff, lawyers, and current staff who may be present to confirm the victims’ claims. These are some of the few incidences an organisation’s crisis communications team must handle (Young 1997). Trust and Credibility Lukaszewski emphasises that people â€Å"confer credibility to firms based on their past behaviours† (Lukaszewski 1999). Organisations that have bad reputations due to past behaviours can suffer credibility test in the future. This is because people tend to use past experiences to predict future behaviours. Organisations may lose credibility when their current behaviours do not reflect their past good behaviours. People can only have trust in an organisation when there is a lack of fear. Fear occurs due to causes by once trusted parties. Fear is too a powerful emotion to contr ol. Some crises only require reduction of fear because there is nothing much to do. Thus, parties must attend to fear in order to avoid cases of frustration, anger, and retribution. Some scholars propose ways to build trust, eliminate fear, and fix credibility in behaviours. These methods include provision of advance information, asking for input, being flexible, staying in touch, speaking plain language, and including victims and participants in the decision-making process. Managing Crisis Communication It is necessary for organisations to plan to continue learning during responses and remedial actions to mitigate crises (Fearn-Banks 2010). Most organisations do not prefer borrowing from past experiences because most management teams do not like handling crises, particularly where urgency is necessary. Most cultures now tend to encourage organisations to express and discuss issues and lessons they have learnt from mistakes. This is a strategy of regaining public confidence (Coombs 2007). Organisations must plan to manage future crises. However, this depends on memories of the PR team. Organisations must learn that they cannot avoid most crises (Harvard Business School Press 2004). Thus, any lesson learned must teach the organisations how to â€Å"foresee, control, and reduce or possibly eliminate any future occurring or reoccurring crises† (Seeger, Sellnow and Ulmer, 2010). Some of the useful information organisations may use in crisis communications include ethics, compliance, or standards of conduct (Fink 2000). Others include observing events timeline, mastering the lessons learned, promoting open questions systems, considering operations issues, taking into account recovery issues, identifying relevant patterns from similar previous incidences, providing time for responses, mapping strategy gaps or failures, expecting surprises of both negative and positive nature, being ready for unintended outcomes, allowing time for visibility, and expecting to work outside the standard procedures. Promptly in Crisis Communication There is constant use of the term â€Å"promptly†. In any crisis management and communication, the term denotes â€Å"the strategic importance of acting quickly† (Lukaszewski 1999). Observers believe that it acceptable to act promptly and make mistakes than fail to act till it is too late, or attempts to act no longer bear any significant meaning. Winning and problem-solving skills in crises situations rely on swift decision-making, speed in reaction, action, and collaboration. There is also the idea of victims. James Lukaszewski notes â€Å"if there are no victims, there is no crisis, and victims are only people, animals, and living systems† (Lukaszewski 1999). Reference List Abarquez, Prosy. â€Å"Handling a crisis with leadership and effective communication (Part 1).† Asian Journal, (2010): 1-2. Athey, John and Williams Moody. â€Å"eveloping cultural competence in disaster mental health programs: Guiding principles and recommendations.† Cultural Competence, 3828, (2003): 30-34. Coombs, Timothy. Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2007. Fearn-Banks, Kathleen. Crisis Communications: A Casebook Approach. New York: Routledge, 2010. Fink, Steven. Crisis Management: Planning for the Inevitable. London: Backinprint, 2000. Grabel, Ilene. â€Å"Identifying Risks, Preventing Crisis: Lessons from the Asian Crisis.† Journal of Economic Issues, 1 no. 2, (2000): 1-5. Haddow, George. Disaster Communications in a Changing Media World. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2010. Harvard Business School Press. Crisis Management: Mastering the Skills to Prevent Disasters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2004. Kim, Kyum. â€Å"New and Old Media Uses and Political Engagement among Korean Adolescents.† Asian Journal of Communication, 17, no. 4 (2007): 342-361. Low, Yvonne Siew-Yo ong. â€Å"Communicating crisis: how culture influences image repair in Western and Asian governments.† Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16, no. 3 (2011): 218 – 242. Lukaszewski, James. â€Å"Seven Dimensions of Crisis Communication Management: A Strategic Analysis and Planning Model.† Ragan’s Communications Journal, 99, (1999): 1-8. Sandoval, Jonathan, and Shaffer Lewis. Cultural considerations in crisis intervention. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists, 2002. Seeger, Matthew, Timothy Sellnow and Robert Ulmer. Effective Crisis Communication: Moving From Crisis to Opportunity. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2010. Skoric, Marko. â€Å"Is Culture Destiny in Asia? A Story of a Tiger and a Lion.† Asian Journal of Communication, (2007): 396-415. Young, Marlene. The community crisis response team training manual (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Organisation for Victim Assistance, 1997. This research paper on Crisis Communication in Asian Cultures was written and submitted by user Elizabeth R. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

SAT Historical Percentiles for 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011

SAT Historical Percentiles for 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011 SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips If you took the SAT from 2011-2015, you may be wondering what your percentile score is on the SAT. Is a 1500 on the SAT in 2011 the same percentile score as a 1500 in 2015? Do percentile scores change over time? In this article, I will explain SAT percentile scores, how they change, and I'll provide the percentile scores for SAT combined scores and section scores for 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011. Note: Go to this article instead if you're looking for historical percentiles for the new SAT (tests taken March 2016 and later). What Are Percentile Scores? Percentile scores reveal how well you did in relation to other people. If you scored in the 99th percentile, then you did better than 99% of the people who took the test. If you scored in the 50th percentile, then you scored higher than 50% of the people who took the test. The College Board determines its percentile scores annually from the scores of college-bound high school seniors who took the SAT. The higher your percentile score, the better you did relative to other high school seniors. Do Percentile Scores Change? Generally, percentile scores for equivalent SAT scores stay the same from year to year. For example, a combined SAT score of 2180 was the 98th percentile in2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. However, percentile scores for the same combined and section scores can change very slightly. A combined score of 1990 was the 92nd percentile for 2014, but it was the 93rd percentile in 2011-2013 and 2015. Similarly, a score of 630 on Critical Reading was the 86th percentile in 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2015, but it was the 87th percentile in 2012. The SAT does try to utilize its scoring system so that equivalent SAT scores are indicative of the same percentile scores and skill level, regardless of when the test was taken. The purpose of the SAT is to provide a valid way to compare students. A score of 1600 from March 2015 is supposed to be equivalent to a 1600 from April 2015 or April 2007. How Should You Use This Data and Why Is It Important? Your percentile score is the most straightforward way to determine if you got a good or badSAT score. If you scored higher than the majority of test-takers, then you did well. However, when you apply to a specific college, you're being compared to the other students who apply to that school. Most colleges publicize their 25th and 75th percentile SAT scores. If you want to be competitive for admission at a certain college, then your target score should be aroundthe school's 75th percentile score. Also, percentile scores help put your scores in context. There may not seem to be much difference between a 680 on the Critical Reading section and a 600 on Math, but the Critical Reading score is the 94th percentile while the Math score is the 75th (according to 2015 SAT percentiles). Raising each section score by 100 points would raise the Critical Reading percentile ranking by 5 points but the Math by 18. If you're considering retaking the SAT, your percentile scores can help you determine how you should prioritize your time. Similarly, a small composite score increase can have a huge impact on your percentile score if you received a middle score. For example, in 2015, a 1500 was the 52nd percentile but a 1750 was the 78th. Raising your score 250 points can raise your score from average to among the top 1/4 of test-takers. Finally, seeing the percentile scores for multiple years shows how little variance there is between percentile scores for the same SAT composite or section score in different years. If you're worried about how an older SAT score stacks up with more recent scores, take a look at these charts to get an idea of how it compares. Composite Score Percentiles, 2015 - 2011 Score 2015 Percentile 2014 Percentile 2013 Percentile 2012 Percentile 2011 Percentile 2400 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 2390 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 2380 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 2370 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 2360 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 2350 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 2340 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 2330 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 2320 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 2310 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 2300 99 99 99+ 99 99+ 2290 99 99 99 99 99+ 2280 99 99 99 99 99 2270 99 99 99 99 99 2260 99 99 99 99 99 2250 99 99 99 99 99 2240 99 99 99 99 99 2230 99 99 99 99 99 2220 99 99 99 99 99 2210 98 98 98 99 99 2200 98 98 98 98 98 2190 98 98 98 98 98 2180 98 98 98 98 98 2170 98 98 98 98 98 2160 98 98 98 98 98 2150 97 97 97 97 98 2140 97 97 97 97 97 2130 97 97 97 97 97 2120 97 97 97 97 97 2110 97 96 97 97 97 2100 96 96 96 96 96 2090 96 96 96 96 96 2080 96 96 96 96 96 2070 95 95 95 96 96 2060 95 95 95 95 95 2050 95 95 95 95 95 2040 94 94 94 95 95 2030 94 94 94 94 94 2020 94 94 94 94 94 2010 93 93 93 93 93 2000 93 93 93 93 93 1990 93 92 93 93 93 1980 92 92 92 92 92 1970 92 92 92 92 92 1960 91 91 91 91 91 1950 91 91 91 91 91 1940 90 90 90 90 90 1930 90 90 90 90 90 1920 89 89 89 89 89 1910 89 89 89 89 89 1900 88 88 88 88 88 1890 88 87 88 88 88 1880 87 87 87 87 87 1870 87 86 86 87 86 1860 86 86 86 86 86 1850 85 85 85 85 85 1840 85 84 84 85 84 1830 84 84 84 84 84 1820 83 83 83 83 83 1810 83 82 82 82 82 1800 82 81 82 82 82 1790 81 81 81 81 81 1780 80 80 80 80 80 1770 80 79 79 79 79 1760 79 78 78 79 78 1750 78 77 78 78 78 1740 77 77 77 77 77 1730 76 76 76 76 76 1720 75 75 75 75 75 1710 74 74 74 74 74 1700 74 73 73 73 73 1690 73 72 72 72 72 1680 72 71 71 71 71 1670 71 70 70 70 70 1660 70 69 69 69 69 1650 69 68 68 68 68 1640 68 67 67 67 67 1630 67 66 66 66 66 1620 66 65 65 65 65 1610 65 64 64 64 64 1600 64 63 63 63 63 1590 62 62 62 62 62 1580 61 61 61 61 61 1570 60 60 60 60 59 1560 59 59 58 59 58 1550 58 57 57 57 57 1540 57 56 56 56 56 1530 56 55 55 55 55 1520 55 54 54 54 53 1510 53 53 52 53 52 1500 52 52 51 51 51 1490 51 50 50 50 50 1480 50 49 49 49 49 1470 49 48 48 48 47 1460 48 47 46 47 46 1450 46 46 45 45 45 1440 45 44 44 44 44 1430 44 43 43 43 42 1420 43 42 42 42 41 1410 42 41 40 40 40 1400 40 40 39 39 39 1390 39 38 38 38 38 1380 38 37 37 37 36 1370 37 36 36 36 35 1360 36 35 34 34 34 1350 34 34 33 33 33 1340 33 32 32 32 32 1330 32 31 31 31 30 1320 31 30 30 30 29 1310 30 29 29 29 28 1300 29 28 27 27 27 1290 28 27 26 26 26 1280 27 26 25 25 25 1270 26 25 24 24 24 1260 25 24 23 23 23 1250 24 23 22 22 22 1240 22 22 21 21 21 1230 22 21 20 20 20 1220 21 20 19 19 19 1210 20 19 18 18 18 1200 19 18 17 17 17 1190 18 17 17 16 16 1180 17 16 16 16 15 1170 16 15 15 15 14 1160 15 14 14 14 14 1150 14 14 13 13 13 1140 14 13 13 12 12 1130 13 12 12 11 11 1120 12 11 11 10 11 1110 12 11 11 10 10 1100 11 10 10 9 9 1090 10 10 9 9 9 1080 10 9 9 9 8 1070 9 8 8 8 8 1060 9 8 8 7 7 1050 8 7 7 7 7 1040 7 7 7 7 6 1030 7 6 6 6 6 1020 7 6 6 6 5 1010 6 6 5 5 5 1000 6 5 5 5 5 990 5 5 5 5 4 980 5 5 4 4 4 970 5 4 4 4 4 960 4 4 4 4 3 950 4 4 3 3 3 940 4 3 3 3 3 930 3 3 3 3 3 920 3 3 3 3 2 910 3 3 3 2 2 900 3 2 2 2 2 890 2 2 2 2 2 880 2 2 2 2 2 870 2 2 2 2 2 860 2 2 2 1 1 850 2 2 1 1 1 840 2 1 1 1 1 830 1 1 1 1 1 820 1 1 1 1 1 810 1 1 1 1 1 800 1 1 1 1 1 790 1 1 1 1 1 780 1 1 1 1 1 770 1 1 1 1- 1- 760 1 1 1- 1- 1- 750 1 1 1- 1- 1- 740 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 730 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 720 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 710 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 700 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 690 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 680 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 670 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 660 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 650 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 640 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 630 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 620 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 610 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 600 Section Score Percentiles Critical Reading Score 2015 Percentile 2014 Percentile 2013 Percentile 2012 Percentile 2011 Percentile 800 99 99 99 99+ 99+ 790 99 99 99 99 99 780 99 99 99 99 99 770 99 99 99 99 99 760 99 99 99 99 99 750 98 98 98 98 98 740 98 98 98 98 98 730 97 97 97 97 97 720 96 97 97 97 97 710 96 96 96 96 96 700 96 95 95 95 95 690 95 94 94 94 94 680 94 93 94 93 93 670 92 92 92 92 92 660 91 91 91 91 91 650 90 90 90 90 90 640 89 88 88 88 88 630 86 86 86 87 86 620 84 84 84 84 84 610 82 82 82 83 82 600 80 80 80 81 80 590 78 77 77 78 78 580 75 75 75 76 75 570 73 72 73 73 73 560 70 70 70 71 70 550 67 66 67 67 67 540 64 64 64 64 64 530 61 60 61 61 60 520 57 57 57 58 58 510 54 54 54 55 54 500 51 50 51 51 51 490 48 47 48 48 47 480 44 44 44 44 44 470 41 40 41 41 40 460 37 37 37 37 37 450 35 34 34 34 34 440 31 31 31 31 30 430 28 27 27 27 27 420 25 25 24 25 24 410 22 21 21 21 21 400 19 19 18 19 18 390 17 16 16 16 16 380 15 14 14 14 14 370 13 12 12 12 11 360 11 10 10 10 10 350 9 9 8 9 8 340 8 7 7 7 7 330 7 6 6 6 6 320 5 5 5 5 5 310 5 4 4 4 4 300 4 4 4 3 3 290 3 3 3 3 3 280 3 3 3 2 2 270 2 2 2 2 2 260 2 2 2 2 2 250 2 2 2 1 1 240 1 1 1 1 1 230 1 1 1 1 1 220 1 1 1 1 1 210 1 1 1 1 1 200 Math Score 2015 Percentile 2014 Percentile 2013 Percentile 2012 Percentile 2011 Percentile 800 99 99 99 99 99 790 99 99 99 99 99 780 99 99 99 98 99 770 98 98 98 98 98 760 97 97 97 97 98 750 97 97 97 97 97 740 96 96 96 96 96 730 95 95 96 96 96 720 95 95 95 95 95 710 94 94 94 94 94 700 93 93 93 93 93 690 92 91 92 92 92 680 90 90 90 90 90 670 89 88 89 89 89 660 87 87 87 87 87 650 86 85 85 85 86 640 84 83 83 83 84 630 82 82 81 82 82 620 80 79 79 80 80 610 77 77 77 78 77 600 75 75 75 74 75 590 73 73 73 72 73 580 71 70 70 70 70 570 68 67 67 67 67 560 66 64 65 64 64 550 62 62 62 62 62 540 59 59 58 58 58 530 56 55 55 55 55 520 53 52 52 52 52 510 50 49 48 49 48 500 46 45 45 45 46 490 44 42 42 42 41 480 41 40 38 39 38 470 37 36 35 35 36 460 34 33 32 32 32 450 31 30 29 29 29 440 28 27 26 26 26 430 25 24 23 23 23 420 22 21 21 21 20 410 19 19 18 18 17 400 17 16 16 16 15 390 15 14 14 13 13 380 13 12 12 11 11 370 11 10 10 10 10 360 9 9 9 8 8 350 8 7 7 7 7 340 7 6 6 6 6 330 6 5 5 5 5 320 5 4 4 4 4 310 4 3 3 3 3 300 3 3 3 2 2 290 2 2 2 2 2 280 2 2 2 2 2 270 1 1 1 1 1 260 1 1 1 1 1 250 1 1 1 1 1 240 1 1 1 1 1 230 1 1 1 1 1 220 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 210 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 200 Writing Score 2015 Percentile 2014 Percentile 2013 Percentile 2012 Percentile 2011 Percentile 800 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 790 99 99 99 99 99 780 99 99 99 99 99 770 99 99 99 99 99 760 99 99 99 99 99 750 98 98 98 98 98 740 98 98 98 98 98 730 98 97 98 98 97 720 97 97 97 97 97 710 96 96 96 96 96 700 96 96 96 96 96 690 95 95 95 95 95 680 94 94 94 94 94 670 93 93 93 93 93 660 92 92 92 92 92 650 91 90 90 90 90 640 89 89 89 89 89 630 88 88 88 88 88 620 86 86 86 86 86 610 84 84 84 84 84 600 82 82 82 82 82 590 80 80 80 80 80 580 78 78 78 78 78 570 76 76 76 75 75 560 74 73 73 73 72 550 71 70 70 70 70 540 68 68 68 67 67 530 65 65 65 64 64 520 62 62 61 61 61 510 59 58 58 58 58 500 56 55 55 55 54 490 53 52 51 52 51 480 49 48 48 48 47 470 46 45 45 44 44 460 42 41 41 41 40 450 39 38 37 38 37 440 35 34 34 34 34 430 32 31 30 31 30 420 29 28 27 27 27 410 25 25 24 24 24 400 22 21 21 21 21 390 19 19 18 18 18 380 17 16 16 16 15 370 14 14 13 13 13 360 12 12 11 11 11 350 10 10 9 9 9 340 8 8 8 8 7 330 7 7 6 6 6 320 6 5 5 5 5 310 5 4 4 4 4 300 4 4 3 3 3 290 3 3 3 3 3 280 3 2 2 2 2 270 2 2 2 2 2 260 2 2 2 1 1 250 2 1 1 1 1 240 1 1 1 1 1 230 1 1 1 1 1 220 1 1 1 1 1 210 1 1 1 1 1- 200 What's Next? Check out these posts on what SAT scores measure and if you need SAT scores to transfer colleges. How do these compare to percentiles on the new SAT? Learn more about new SAT percentile ranks here. Finally, learn how to calculate your SAT score. Want to learn more about the SAT but tired of reading blog articles? Then you'll love our free, SAT prep livestreams. Designed and led by PrepScholar SAT experts, these live video events are a great resource for students and parents looking to learn more about the SAT and SAT prep. Click on the button below to register for one of our livestreams today!