How can two different Quant scores make same total score

[amvins]

I'm sure this is discussed somewhere on this forum. How can two people have same GMAT score of 700 but one score breakout is V38/Q47 vs the other's score is V38/Q48.

Thanks.

[yourshail123]

It doesn't has to be true that same overall means same breakout of sectional scores. Scores depend on the percentile of test takers. PFA GMAT Score Translation Table that will give you an idea.
The table will not necessarily show the figures which you mentioned (V38/Q47 and V38/Q48), but certainly shows that for some of the overall scores - check for 610,670,720,750,etc in the table attached.

[amvins]

Thanks for sharing the table. I still want to understand what does it mean in simple terms?
Does it mean that one of these combinations (either V38/Q47 or V38/Q48) is very rare to change percentile ranking of total score?

[David@VeritasPrep]

What it means is this:

Your total score is based on your percentile scores within the Quant and the Verbal. There are more percentiles than there are number scores for most of the scoring.

What this means is that a 49 on the Quant on my test may be different than a 49 on your test. There is basically a "high 49" which is a higher percentile than is a "low 49." Each of these scores shows up as a 49 scaled score for Quant but the percentile could vary by a few percentile.

So in the example that you have this could easily happen. On the score that seems lower - Q 47 and V 38 - the percentile could be a "High 47" for the Quant and a "High 38" for the verbal. For the seemingly higher score it could be a "Low 48" Quant and a "Low 38" Verbal.

The one area where this is not true is for verbal scores from 45 to 51. This entire range is all the 99th percentile. So while a 50 on verbal seems so much higher than a 45, it really does not impact the score as much.

Here is a link to an article on the Veritas Prep Blog that explains everything. https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2011/10 ... gine-work/

Hope it helps!

[amvins]

Great explanation. Thanks David.