Superscoring was introduced by the College Board in 2012, and took a few years to catch on. Some (unsubstantiated) estimates I have seen indicate that as many as 3% of all applicants report a top 1% score on ACT/SAT. Stats-wise, I think that would mean a school like Stanford, which previously had 4 or 5 strong candidates for each opening (and who would not dilute their average scores), now has 12 or 15. That would give the AO’s far higher discretion in “crafting” a class, either by focusing on holistic (hate that word) qualities or by taking more first gens, URM’s, Legacies, etc. They could even take more low GPA athletes since they benefit from Superscoring as well. The conversion to Superscoring seems to coincide nicely with the crazy ramp up in competition at the top schools the last few years, but my guess is it has flown under the radar in places like CC because each on of us individually thinks it makes us look better.
Huh? Colleges have been accepting superscores of the SAT for long before 2012. It is the colleges themselves who choose whether they will superscore, not CB. (Of course not all colleges superscore.)
Perhaps what you are thinking about is score choice?
Private colleges like Stanford have always had the discretion to admit whomever they choose. They don’t have to superscore to do so, and the scores reported on the CDS are one sitting scores, not superscores.
How do you know it’s the one-sitting scores? How does a college choose which sitting to report?
Colleges can report whatever they want on the CDS, or on their Class of XXXX profiles.
Correct. There are no instructions on the CDS that tells colleges that they cannot superscore.
And since few colleges want to unilaterally disarm, I would be extremely surprised if Stanford does not superscore.
fwiw: The University of California does not superscore, but that is by internal policy.
again a misplaced emphasis on scores, if you want to focus on a statistic, GPA is weighted more heavily.
I thought you could superscore when I applied to college in the 80’s …
Exactly, and that is bcos its in the college’s best interest to super score.
Superscoring, at least for the SAT, has been around since the late 1980’s, not long after US News started to issue annual college rankings. It’s initial development was an obvious attempt by some colleges to raise their middle 50% SAT scores and thus raise their US News Rankings. However, it did not take long for large numbers of colleges to adopt it, likely so they would not be outdone in the rankings, but there are still many, particularly many publics, that do not superscore.
Superscoring the ACT started later in the 1990s and fewer colleges adopted superscoring for it than for the SAT. That hold back on the ACT was the result of two main factors. Unlike the College Board which traditionally has sent all the tests you have taken to colleges in one order, ACT has always charged a separate fee to submit each test, so submitting more than one increases the costs of applying to colleges, and colleges were reluctant to adopt superscoring the ACT because of the additional costs of sending scores. The other factor is that, early on, College Board adopted a neutral position on superscoring, in that it would not say it was wrong to superscore. ACT, howevet, took the position that superscoring ACTs was not proper and diminished the accuracy of the test result. Thus, many colleges that superscored the SAT avoided superscoring ACTs as a result, although over the years, the number that superscore ACTs has steadily grown
Thanks for the correction, everybody. I read that the CB started supporting it in 2012, but should have realized it was possible well before that.
I always think superscoring is for colleges to report higher scores on CDS. Since they have all the scores, they can use it however they like in the admission process.
Super scoring, prep centers, multiple test attempts type things really hurt SAT’s importance.