<p>Is a 2400 on the SAT the "equivalent: of a 36 on the ACT(36 Math, English, Reading, etc..) in college admissions?</p>
<p>yes, yes it is.</p>
<p>No, it is not. The two are separate tests and an ACT-SAT conversion table gives ranges and the high end of the 36 to SAT conversion does not correlate to a 2400. Moreover, a recent ACT statistical report gives evidence that there are 588 36 ACT scores this year. The number is presumably similar in other years. However, not as many score 2400. The number who do is around 300. Therefore, I believe it is safe to assume a 2400 is rarer than the 36.</p>
<p>Yes, that is true, but how many of the 588 people have 36 in all of their sections?</p>
<p>^That is probably very rare, but the SAT is still held in a higher regard by many colleges, especially in the northeast</p>
<p>^source/citation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NOT correct. They are viewed equally. It’s not going to matter to any admissions committee whether an applicant submits a 2400 SAT or a 36 ACT – both are spectacular scores achieved by a very small number of test takers annually.</p>
<p>Let’s see, is 2400 and a 36 equal? What the heck does it matter.</p>
<p>As to there being fewer 2400s than 36’s in a year, that is a recent phenomenon. Before they added writing to the SAT, the number that scored 1600 on it was usually about 7 times more than those who scored 36 on the ACT. The ACT has not really changed since then, the SAT added writing to get the new total of 2400 and that is what has resulted in fewer max scores. You should also note that the number who end up with 2400 scores for consideration for admission at most colleges is still about 6 times more than the number who end up with 36. That is because majority of colleges superscore the SAT (meaning they take the highest subscores from multiple tests) and they don’t do that with the ACT but instead use only that test with the highest composite score from a single sitting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the Collegeboard 2010 College Handbook, there were numerous colleges that only accepted the SAT and not the ACT, a famous one that I remember being Dartmouth.</p>
<p>I do;however, agree with the last bit:
</p>
<p>Dartmouth takes the ACT: [Testing[/url</a>] Every college in any ranking list takes the ACT and it has been that way since 2007:<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-03-18-life-cover-acts_N.htm[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-03-18-life-cover-acts_N.htm](<a href=“Apply to Dartmouth | Dartmouth Admissions”>Apply to Dartmouth | Dartmouth Admissions)</a> I have not seen that handbook but if it is actually listing numerous colleges as not taking the ACT, it is mistaken on those numerous colleges. If you want an interesting fact, one set of colleges just recently went from having no preference for either test to stating a preference: the Cal Poly’s, in a state where the SAT dominates, recently went to preferring the ACT.</p>
<p>I shall check the handbook again. Psh. Last time I trust those dummies. </p>
<p>just kidding! It was my mistake, I should have verified.</p>
<p>A 36 ACT roughly translates to a 2390, according to the most recognized conversion chart. I’m sure silverturtle will swoop in on this thread and say something similar pretty soon.</p>
<p>They aren’t exactly the same, but any difference between a 36 and 2400 is negligible at best. Both are likely to be weighed equally in the admissions process.</p>
<p>One aspect that has not been mentioned on this thread yet is that most college admissions officers took the SAT when they were in high school as opposed to the ACT. Because they experienced the SAT and not the ACT, they’re likely to have a “bias” and regard a 2400 more higly than a 36- since they took it themselves and know how tough it is to get a good score. (I didn’t make this up by the way. I definitely read this somewhere).</p>
<p>If admin officers went to school in the eastern states or the west coast, it is probably true that most took the SAT. If they went to school in most of the states in the middle of the country, they probably took the ACT. If you add up all the population of the eastern states and west coast you probably get a total population that is greater than the middle states of the country and thus can conclude that somewhat more likely took the SAT than the ACT. Colleges, other than the Cal Poly’s which prefer the ACT, state they have no preference. You can either trust them or not. Reality is that they don’t sit around during decision-making meetings going, “Do you think a 36 ACT is worse than a 2400 SAT?” They are aware of both tests and have knowledge of where they expect applicants to be on either test for admission to their college. It is a great debate only among high school students who are applying to college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup, I agree with all of that.</p>
<p>
No. The SAT they experienced was based on a 1600 and was centered differently. They will know, however, that there are fewer 2400 scorers than there are people with a 36.</p>
<p>Well I would bet that there are fewer students scoring 36-36-36-36 then 2400.</p>
<p>Lol wow this thread is old, but I agree with asqwertyui311… There are probably fewer students who score 36 on all sections…</p>
<p>And honestly, I feel like I see more 2400’s around…</p>
<p>Probably because of superscoring…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no data on this, but it seems like sound speculation, since the ACT composite score is a favorably rounded average. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s possible that your sample is biased since you live in New York, where the SAT reigns, and frequent CC, where the SAT is also more prominent.</p>
<p>Guys, I have a question. If I got a 2400 on the SAT (just took in January), then should I take the ACT? Does it really matter?</p>