<p>Hypothetically, would you support an initiative that would allow students to simply choose which section scores to send to universities rather than submitting the full test? In essence, by this provision, a student would be endowed with the freedom to automatically select his or her own superscore.</p>
<p>I would personally say yes. Distinctions are obviously made between subscores and I believe that it offers an additional degree of leniency for applicants. Nearly all universities simply superscore for purposes of admission (if one exists, that is). Hence, what additional benefit would the submission of the full test provide if it supplies nothing but extraneous data for admission consideration?</p>
<p>Disclaimer: Superscoring was not a factor in the evaluation of my college applications so my judgment is not colored by my own personal situation.</p>
<p>Yes, I would support it. Applicants should be able to demonstrate their abilities by showing only their best scores; if an admissions officer sees a bad score, it is difficult not to be unconsciously affected by it, even if the official policy dictates that it not be considered.</p>
<p>No. I personally do not like the superscoring option, mostly because I do not believe getting a 2400/2350/2300 etc. superscored is the same as getting the same score in one sitting.</p>
<p>And if such a policy is implemented, I think colleges should be able to request a full Score Report. Many would- just like with Score Choice.</p>
<p>Agree with Alt_F4. It would be quite unfair.</p>
<p>I would support.</p>
<p>“Hence, what additional benefit would the submission of the full test provide if it supplies nothing but extraneous data for admission consideration?”</p>
<p>This is right on… Its not like a the score is less legitimate if its superscored. They have shown that they can achieve at that level.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say a superscore is not legitimate, but it’s hardly on the same level as the same score achieved in one sitting.</p>
<p>It’s kind of like how people argue that a 2400 is different from a 2350. There’s not much difference between the two, but they’re not exactly the same either. Sure, it’s not easy to get a superscore 2400, but I’d say that 2400 one sitting is more difficult to get. I really don’t think they’ve achieved at the same level.</p>
<p>And it’s that difference that would make it unfair. While there are people who take exams again and again, there are also people who can get the same score with fewer tries. Why shouldn’t that be a factor taken into consideration? Of course, it shouldn’t be the only element in admissions. But we can’t discount it as completely negligible.</p>
<p>No, but then I don’t even support Score Choice.</p>
<p>A 2400 in one sitting is more difficult than a 2400 in more than one sitting. But they still have demonstrated that they were able to achieve perfect scores in those sections - therefore they have the full ability and colleges recognize that.</p>
<p>Do you think colleges should average scores and ignore Score Choice AltF4? (This is opinion so there is no right or wrong answer.) But colleges would not like that since they only use superscores for their statistics and would seem to lower the quality of their students.</p>
<p>No, I definitely would not support it (unless someone later convinces me otherwise).</p>
<p>mifune, of course you support score choice since you seem to have retaken 2300+ multiple times.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mifune’s proposed changes offer no personal advantage to him.</p>
<p>^^^ i realize that. I also support it. i don’t want anyone to see my 2040 :(</p>
<p>^^ I support it too! my first sat score was horrible. retaking it with score choice is amazing!</p>
<p>Here’s some fiction:</p>
<p>Ever since Mifune’s Revised Score Choice Policy came out, I’ve been ecstatic. The SAT has been simplified. SO. MUCH.</p>
<p>I decided to study math over the summer for the October SAT. Results? 460CR, 800M, 520W. GREAT! I’m 1/3 the way there!</p>
<p>Crammed CR for the December SAT, took power naps during the M and W sections. Results? 800CR, 200M, 200W! 2/3 the way there! (Yeah, I wrote some crap for the essay and got a 0. And then I resumed my power nap).</p>
<p>Now for the writing. Practice essays. Grammar. I crammed it all. March SAT: 200CR, 200M, 800W!</p>
<ol>
<li>:) I’m a baller.</li>
</ol>
<p>^^^^ personal convictions once again. Of course you feel like your s h i t doesn’t stink because you got a 2400 first try.</p>
<p>Nah, I’m just pointing out a flaw in the policy. People would just say screw it to the other two sections while focusing on one. And they’d do that 3 times. I don’t like the sound of that.</p>
<p>I agree w/ delontewest. There does seem to be a bit of self serving arguments. Keans point is not flawless nor is anything. I think its shortsighted to see one side but not the other. There are arguments for both sides and I am pretty darn sure mifune realizes this and thats why it asks for opinion.</p>
<p>I agree with Kean. If Student A takes Kean’s hypothetical approach, and ends up with a 2400 while Student B takes the SAT only once and receives a 2350, then with the new system Student A appears to be the stronger student. Doesn’t this seem wrong to you?</p>
<p>The new policy would succeed, however, in making the CB much more money. You’d have weaker students taking the SAT multiple times in order to concentrate on specific sections and stronger students retaking already high scores to ensure that they can ‘compete’ with the former.</p>
<p>I also think that the SAT would lose much of its credibility with colleges, considering that they (the colleges) would know that the above method was possible.</p>
<p>If you’re going to allow self super scoring of the three different sections, why not just divide the SAT into three different subject tests. That way, you can send whichever one you want and focus on one at a time. </p>
<p>Or you won’t even have to sit in a testing room for five hours straight - just take one section, then leave the subsequent two blank and take a break!</p>