<p>Lot's less. It doesn't REQUIRE a 36. Most recipients don't have a 36.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't want to sound like an SAT partisan (I want to tread lightly around here!!), but isn't it possible that the SAT represents a more self-selected group while the ACT reflects all those forced to take the test in IL, hence possibly making the percentage cutoff a bit skewed?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really, really, just as the SAT is standard in many states, the ACT is standard in others. Illinois is one of them. In Illinois, most college-bound kids start with the ACT, even kids at private schools who are not required by Illinois law to take it.</p>
<p>Florida would be a good state to compare stats. 81000 took the ACT and 97000 took the SAT. There must be a lot of overlapping. The original list had 45 people and they added 30. In 2007 there were only 7 36s.</p>
<p>I'm too dense even to grasp what this thread is discussing at this point. Ther's a lot of noodling over SAT and ACT percents and scores and such - what is the question? Is the debate about whether a 36 is more rare or difficult than a 2400? I think there's pretty good evidence that they are comparable but the SAT is a bit more rare - ~260 2400s in 2007 across a somewhat larger group of test takers; ~309 36s. Just using crude statistics, this seems to indicate that the SAT is just a tad harder to ace than the ACT. Of course, it may be a different group of kids taking it . . . FWIW, my D decided to take the SAT even after getting a 36 - she seemed to think that the tests were really different and showed different strengths. Whatever the vicissitudes of the committee making the cuts for pres scholars, I think it's good that our kids have both tests available to them. College Board just seems like such a monopoly.</p>
<p>Before everyone jumps down mammall's throat because her daughter took the SAT even after getting a 36 ACT, please remember that the National Merit competition does not accept ACT scores, even a 36.</p>
<p>Yes. Confirming PSAT scores for National Merit Finalist status is a valid reason to take the SAT I, even after acing the ACT. Aside from that, though, it's unnecessary, IMO.</p>
<p>I'm having a hard time following what this thread is discussing too, but don't the numbers above reflect that more kids in traditional SAT states are now taking the ACT too? That's what I see happening in our neck of the woods. Three years ago when my older son was going through this process, only kids who struggled with the SAT took the ACT; for my younger son's class (he's now a senior), it seems like everyone, including high scorers on the SAT, took both tests. Kids often take the ACT first, in either December or February of junior year, then follow with the SAT in March.</p>
<p>Yes, jrpar, this thread has meandered. ;)</p>
<p>It does seem that more kids in SAT territory are taking the ACT now, and the increasing numbers of kids taking the ACT each year reflects that.</p>
<p>I think the question under discussion now is whether it is necessary/advisable for a student who gets a 36 on the ACT to go on to sit for the SAT I as well. I think that, given that all colleges now accept the ACT, and it appears that institutional prejudice against the ACT has ended, there's no real reason for a 36 scorer to take the SAT I, too. Colleges say they want one or the other, not both. An exception is the student who must confirm PSAT scores for National Merit Finalist purposes. Midmo correctly points out that NM won't accept ACT scores, even 36s, for that purpose. Only SAT I will do.</p>
<p>I agree that there's no reason for a high ACT scorer to take the SAT I too, other than for NM. That was my younger son's experience. We discussed this issue in a couple of legacy admissions counseling sessions at two highly selective schools that have traditionally been SAT focussed, and admissions advised us that there was no need to take the SAT I. SAT II's were required though, in addition to the ACT with writing.</p>
<p>And to add a further nuance, even at schools that take the ACT in lieu of the SAT I and II, my son (who did not submit SAT I scores) did submit SAT II scores in addition to the ACT. He figured he had to take the SAT IIs for other schools, so he might as well submit them across the board for good measure.</p>
<p>After 240 PSAT, 2360 SAT (Fall of Jr year) GC was cryptic when she suggested taking the ACT too (Spring of Jr year). 36 score. First Presidential Scholar candidate in I don't know how many years (if ever) for the school (that's the reason for this thread, isn't it?).</p>
<p>I’m with Piccolo. I still don’t get it.</p>
<p>I understand that wjb is saying they are now considering all composite 36 scores equally (144-142 subscores). Fair enough. But what I’m unclear about is why they would need to go below the 36 composite threshold in the high scoring populous states such as CA, NY, MA, & etc. </p>
<p>In CA, you need a 1600 SAT or ACT equivalent. They typically have 100+ students in that range. So assuming that NY has a similar number of 1600 SATs, or at least 40 students and then adding all the ties, a 141 or <36 would not make the cutoff.</p>
<p>So, does this mean that they are now taking the top 40 SAT scores and the top 40 ACT scores with no correlation (including ties). Because if that is the case, I can see a flood of students in high scoring states moving over to the ACT to increase their chances of being nominated. In CA this year there were 20 students with 36 ACT scorers. That leaves room to go below the 36 threshold. Am I reading this right? I know the year my S was on the PS list in CA there were 136 students; this year there are 196. </p>
<p>National Merit move over! For the high score gunners, the Presidential Scholars nomination is the new game in town.</p>
<p>Here's a link at the ED web site that lets you search actual Presidential Scholars by high school since the program started in 1964:</p>
<p>And here are some quick numbers:</p>
<p>Punahou (Hawaii) 27 (my alma mater, also Barack's)
Iolani (Hawaii) 15</p>
<p>Phillips Exeter 22
Phillips Andover 11 (looks like Exeter has them beat)</p>
<p>Lexington HS 8 (not bad for a public school)</p>
<p>Thomas Jefferson (Va) 19 (students screened based on standardized test scores, right?)</p>
<p>Boston Latin 3 (lower than I'd expect)</p>
<p>Groton School 1 (also lower than I'd expect)</p>
<p>3Ks: Nobody but the gov't knows exactly how they selected the candidates this year. It is clear from wjb's earlier post and other evidence that they have changed their practice somehow, and additional ACT test takers were notified to be candidates (this led to the bizarre situation in Illinois this year where there are 130 or so candidates, way more than past years). The ED web site indicates only that a candidate can qualify based on either SAT or ACT scores.</p>
<p>Last night curmudgeon and I established that a 36 ACT score is harder to achieve than a 1600 SAT (M + V, they don't count Writing)--actually 3-4x harder based on percentages. So a 141 ACT, although it's a 35, may still be equivalent to a 1600 SAT in terms of percentages of test takers.</p>
<p>So let's assume they pick all the 36's and 1600's first. In populous states like NY, CA, that should be enough to give them the minimum of 20 male and 20 female candidates that they need. Done.</p>
<p>In other, less populous states, they would then need to go to lower ACT and SAT scores to reach the 40 minimum. That's where the score equivalence, or "concordance" comes into play. Is a 34 ACT the same as a 1510 SAT or a 1530 SAT? This does matter since, in principle, they should take both ACT and SAT test-takers with "equivalent" scores. Much of the discussion last night was on how to equate an ACT with an SAT score.</p>
<p>Hope this helps. Only the gov't knows. Trust the gov't to do the right thing.</p>
<p>Something is truly goofed. <a href="http://www.ed.gov/programs/psp/select.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.ed.gov/programs/psp/select.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
All graduating high school seniors who are citizens of the United States and have scored exceptionally well on either the SAT of the College Board or the ACT Assessment of the American College Testing Program during the two-year window that begins in September, 2005 and runs through October, 2007, are automatically considered for participation. This program cycle concludes with recognition events held in June, 2008. Students who notified ACT or ETS in writing that they did not want their scores released to outside agencies are excluded. Also excluded are students who did not indicate their year of graduation to be between January and August of the current program year.</p>
<p>The U.S. Department of Education then looks at test records for the top 30 males and top 30 females in each of the states/jurisdictions. For each examinee, the SAT score is converted to the ACT Sum of Scores, according to a concordance table. Each individual examinee's highest test score (in a single test administration ) is identified, and duplicates and/or lower scores are dropped.</p>
<p>The combined file of scores from the top male examinees and top female examinees are then ranked from high to low in each state. The scores associated with the top 20 male examinees and top 20 female examinees are used to identify the candidates in each state. When ties occur in the cut off score, more than 20 persons of that gender are selected in that state.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What does THAT concordance table look like? Hmmmm. We know collegeboard says 1590 is a 35, but what ACT "sum of scores" number? I'm betting they've been doing this wrong for years and years.</p>
<p>1590 is a 140. I called them last year.</p>
<p>I'd love to see the concordance table they use to convert SAT scores to ACT scores. Hope it's not the one based on 1994-1996 data (link provided earlier), but I think it is--since it shows a 1590 converting to a 140.</p>
<p>Perhaps that old concordance table is what was questioned this year?</p>
<p>So QM and piccolojr, if 1590 is 140, then maybe 1600 is 141. If all 1600s have automatically been candidates, then if this is the concordance they've just switched to perhaps all 141s are candidates too, this year??</p>
<p>Sorry, I only have one datum. The only actual concordance tables I've seen relate SAT CR + M to ACT composite, not sum of scores.</p>