jamesford

Schools that say they have no preference really don't have any preference.

FWIW a 35 is about 2340 on the SAT scale, nowhere near 2200.

cjgone

The ACT and SAT are viewed equally by most schools with some exceptions.


@ the guy saying a 35 is only a 2200.. BS? Percentile wise, it's definitely around a 2300-2350. There isn't some population excuse anymore. 1.5 mil ppl on SAT vs 1.4 mil on the ACT. No excuses now, the SAT isn't "better".

I was reading arguments from back in 06 that the ACT had nothing on the SAT because not many people took it compared to the SAT.... Good fight, not true in 08 or 09-- and the percentiles have only dropped slightly, but that's expected.

Rtgrove123

I mean ya....as I said a superscored SAT score is usually weighted equally with its corresponding ACT score. However, despite the fact that it might b more "pragmatic" to superscore the SAT over the ACT, there MUST be some other reason as to why most good private schools all choose to take the highest SAT subscores and not the highest ACT subscores.

Look, most people on this forum say that a single sitting SAT score looks better than a superscored one. So, if most colleges weight a superscored SAT as equal to that of the ACT, wouldn't a single sitting score such as a 2340 look slightly better than a 35 on the ACT.

Lastly, yes, the number testers taking the ACT has DEFINATELY increased greatly to about the same number of SAT testers. However, the number of students who submit ACT scores to the ivies is extremely low. According to the CB, around 25 percent of the app pool submitted the ACT to these schools. Could it b a regional thing? Ya, however at the good schools the SAT is still the dominant test (which is good cuz like it or not..the act is a horrible test).

cjgone

lolwut? ACT is a good test while the SAT is complete and utter trash. I can't think of more than one skill set it tests for that is plausibly useful with the exception of the comprehension section.

Math-- tests basic math knowledge that is very limited to what you need in college. Instead of testing for concepts you need, it attempts to test mathmatical knowlege using poorly crafted sentences so that even if someone can do it, they'll get confused, mark a wrong answer and lose 1\4 a point. And someone who had no idea gets -0 instead -- penalty for trying.

Writing--- extremely biased depending on the prompt. How often are novels written in 25 minutes? Exactly. Writing fast isn't a measure of writing skill.

Vocab -- Use a thesaurus. Seriously, memorizing vocabulary words is completely worthless.

Comprehension-- only useful test. It shows how well you understand given text.

Note that the 1\4 penalty means that the harder you try the worse you're penalized. 99% of questions have answers worded around \ close to the right answer, especially the math section. So because someone knows how to do the whole problem, but mutiplies wrong somehow, they lose more points than someone who has no idea what to do.. That makes TOTAL sense... I'm a victim of this BS. I have yet to see a SAT math problem I can't do and I still miss a gazillion of them. When I get something wrong on the ACT, I know that I had a gap in my knowledge or understanding.

jamesford

Some "good" schools that superscore the ACT

Amherst
Cornell
MIT
WashU
NYU
Olin

Where are other schools? As has been stated, superscoring the ACT would require sifting through multiple score reports as opposed to one. The Ivies don't need more on their plate during admissions season.

Elaborate? I'd argue that both are significantly flawed.

dreamsofivy

In response to people that said it was BS, I do have stats.

I have two friends who were LITERALLY virtually identical applicants. They were:

White Males, with AP Bio and AP USH their soph year, AP Calc, AP Psych, and AP Physics B their senior year, and all honors classes otherwise.

Their ECs were the same: One sport each (different sport) and captain of that sport, Member of Band all 4 years, stong interest in Peer Ministry.

Difference? SAT vs. ACT.

One has a 2280, the other a 35.

2280 got into most schools, including Cornell and UPenn, ACT was rejected from all.

I read both essays (well, i peer edited them), and they were very similiar, if not the same in terms of quality.

So, in rereading my post, I MEANT to say that:
36= 2300+
35 = 2200-2300

The problem with this is that it creates ranges, and the lack of specific numbers makes it tough to discern where the person would fall in that SAT category.

cooljazz

Okay, I've made my view on this very clear in the past. So I'm going to keep it simple:

1. Obviously, colleges know that standardized tests aren't everything, only one component. So a 2400 is not guaranteed in anywhere.

2. Of course, standardized tests are still important, because they provide a way for colleges to compare applicants on an even scale.

3. The SAT and the ACT are a COMPLETELY different tests. Different timings, number of questions, content, everything.

4. Why would prestigious schools, with a LOT of experience, weight these tests EXACTLY EQUALLY??

5. From experience and what others have told me, the SAT is viewed as superior when compared to the ACT. It is seen as the challenging, intellectual test; the ACT is seen as the test for the hardworking, fairly average student. This may not be fair, but that's the system.

A lot of people who defend the ACT are low-scoring SAT takers, by the way. just something to keep in mind.

If you want to see a comprehensive discussion on this and my full explanation, SAT and ACT are looked at equally by colleges,right?

cjgone

cooljazz, what you're missing is that being hard-working is much more important than being intelligient. Intelligience is like skin color, who the hell cares really. Your born with it--high intellect is completely based on luck, no more, no less.

I can see some bias towards the SAT because it has been around for longer and the such, but saying that the ACT is easier because you can study a lot more for it doesn't make sense. Look at the percentiles; That's how you should be comparing the two tests. There shouldn't be "Oh, okay, even though a 36 is percentally equal to a 2370-2400, it must be worth less.". A 32 is a 99% percent on the ACT, but is supposedly only equivalent to a 2130-2150 range, despite that being in the low 98% for the SAT. Another example, a 30 being a 96% and a 2000 being 93% and yet having them equal. I can see that as a slight bias, because statistically, a 32 should be around 2160-2200 and a 30 should be a 2050-2060. I guess the conversion factor depends on the college; the highest conversion i've seen are from the university of california, but I bet there's other colleges that undermine the ACT's value. Slight bias, but undermining the ACT's value is ignorant.

Only people who are born with high IQs and did little or no work have a bias against the ACT. My message to them: Get over yourself-- i'm glad you won the lottery, but don't undermine everyone below you because you got lucky. Note, that I believe in equality and an equal playing field for everyone, so yeah, i'm pretty ****ed off when some arrogant genius tries to talk trash on the ACT.

cooljazz

Oh, I definitely think that hardwork is just as important as intelligence. But at the end of the day, colleges are meant to be places of intellectual studies. So it's not fair, but they want the "lucky" geniuses who have that special spark. Hardwork is just expected. So I'm not going to argue the fact that we are born with intelligence. The fact is, the challenging, intellectual test is valued over the test for the hardworking, average kids.

The statistics may show that the ACT should be valued more, my point is that it isn't. Colleges see the SAT as superior, so to answer the topic question, the tests aren't weighed the same.

I think the colleges "undermine the ACT's value" just because they know the format. You always hear people say, "It was so easy, just had to manage time correctly." or "The science section has always been a joke" or "I can't believe i got a 35 on the ACT! My SAT was only a 1980." On the other hand, on the SAT board it's "OMG the CR is so hard to improve, I never have time to finish those hard passages!" You can see, it's all over these boards. So I guess colleges are just picking up on that fact.

I don't think you should write off proponents of the SAT as people who didn't do any work and should get over themselves. Sorry, but the tests are just on different levels in the eyes of universities. And if you were referring to me at the end, I wish i were an "arrogant genius," but I'm not

Yakyu Spirits

ACT and SAT are looked at the same, don't let people try to scare you. If a school accepts the ACT and you want to send it, go ahead.

Many people who score poorly on the ACT try to bash it, just like how people who score poorly on the SAT try to bash it. In my opinion, it's an advantage to have two types of tests available, because you may not do well on one but might do better on the other.

I go to a top 3 public school in Illinois, and the ACT test is mandated by the state. Most people don't even bother with the SAT I, yet our school still sends many students to Ivies and other very prestigious schools with the ACT alone. Don't let people influence you with their regional bias. Take whatever test you perform better on.

cjgone

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, but the people know who they are .

I know, I always hear about the ACT being "way easier" then the SAT. The percentiles for the scores, however, don't really match up with the claims-- and population differences are hardly a factor now or something I heard back from 06, "people who take the ACT are not as competitive as people taking the SAT". I don't think the SAT or the ACT is harder, but more of a preference.

And I think that a lot of people on these forums are fairly hard-working, explaining the larger number of 36s to 2400s, etc. The amount of people with 2390-2400s is roughly equal to the number of people with 36s on the ACT, statistically speaking (looking from 2370-2400, there's a much larger amount of people with that than the ACT...). For every person who has a higher ACT than SAT, there's a person with a higher SAT than ACT.

Unoriginal

I'm just saying that I'm applying to a lot of schools on the East Coast (Fordham, NYU, BC, BU, Villanova, etc), where the SAT is the dominant test, and being from NY, most people take the SAT, and I'm just a bit worried, especially since I already took the SAT twice and didn't do so well, although once was in tenth grade.

jamesford

In terms of Ivy League admissions you're trying to pinpoint the single reason why one applicant was chosen over another? That's going to be futile, especially since you can't speak from the perspective of an admissions officer.

The whole ACT vs. SAT debate is pointless. When colleges say they value the two equally, they mean it. They recognize that some people do better on one test than another, and colleges recognize that.

kiterunner18

dreamsofivy -- You have no way to prove that. . . the admissions process is holistic at those schools. You don't know how their interviews went, or any other factors that may have played into the process. You aren't using STATS, you're using a personal anecdote, which makes your argument inherently flawed.

And also. . .

"Lastly, yes, the number testers taking the ACT has DEFINATELY increased greatly to about the same number of SAT testers."

You should learn how to spell before trying to make a coherent argument, rtgrove. Just sayin'. . .

Rtgrove123

Kiterunner-

Ok, I am fine with serious debate. However, this is not an academic setting where "spelling" is crucial. I dont give a dam whether you have a problem with my spelling or not and I dont see any reason for you to attack my writing...it simply wasnt constructive in any way.