<p>Would you rather get a 35 or 36 on ACT or 2250 on SAT?</p>
<p>I hear that colleges say they do not care which test you take, but alot of kids at my school say that SAT is more respected and that college admissions officers know that SAT is much harder. </p>
<p>I plan on applying to ivies, swarthmore, washu, georgetown, and amherst</p>
<p>The reason I am asking about this is because I got a 2250 and am considering taking ACT in the beginning of my senior year. I am fairly confident of getting a 35/36</p>
<p>What do you think? Is it worth taking the ACT?</p>
<p>That score would most likely be good enough, but I believe a 35/36 is considered higher than a 2250. If I were you, I would not take the ACT unless you felt the 35/36 would be very easily accomplished.</p>
<p>Scratch that! I just found the correct table for 2009. My goof. I was approximating the 2250 from another table that showed separate percentiles for CR, Math and Writing.</p>
<p>Did you calculate the percentiles to the tenth and hundredth places yourself, or is there still another table somewhere that documents the data to that level of precision?</p>
<p>not really. because what i have heard is that although the conversion of a 35 is better, it doesnt look that strong because college admissions officers find the act to be easier. So pretty much I’ve been told by multiple people that it’s like scoring higher on an easier test.</p>
<p>I disagree. Consider this excerpt from my guide.</p>
<p>-Is it true that there isn’t much of a difference once I reach a certain score?</p>
<p>There are two schools of thought on this issue. There are some who hold that there is a threshold score (2100 and 2250 are often thrown around as that number) beyond which score increases do not affect admissions decisions. The other school (to which I belong) believes that higher scores causally correlate with higher chances across the entire score range. Yet consider this College Confidential post from MIT admissions officer Chris Peterson:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is this true, though? I don’t think so, at least with respect to every top college except MIT. Why? Two reasons: one, because, logically, SAT scores positively correlate with ability across the entire score range; and two, because all the data support the idea that scores causally correlate with admissions chances across the entire score range. Here is a sampling of some of that data (all of these can be found the schools’ Web sites:</p>
<p>[ul][<em>]At Stanford, applicants with 800 on the Critical Reading section of the SAT are 64% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 700-790.
[</em>]At Stanford, applicants with 800 on the Writing section are 58% more likely to be admitted than those with 700-790.<br>
[<em>]At Princeton, applicants with 2300-2400 on the SAT are 130% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 2100-2290.
[</em>]At Dartmouth, applicants with 800 on the Critical Reading section of the SAT are 122% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 700-790.
[<em>]At Dartmouth, applicants with 800 on the Math section of the SAT are 68% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 700-790.
[</em>]At Dartmouth, applicants with 800 on the Writing section of the SAT are 118% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 700-790.
[<em>]At Brown, applicants with 800 on the Critical Reading section of the SAT are 39% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 750-790.
[</em>]At Brown, applicants with 800 on the Math section of the SAT are 28% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 750-790.
[<em>]At Brown, applicants with 800 on the Writing section of the SAT are 46% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 750-790.
[</em>]At Brown, applicants with 36 on the ACT are 119% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 33-35 and 273% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 29-32.[/ul]
There is no merely correlational explanation for these data; it is illogical that higher scorers’ applications tend to be so much stronger otherwise that the correlation is fully explained away by these confounding variables. Consider, moreover, the results of an [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/651345-race-college-admissions-faq-discussion-3-a-49.html#post1062655144]analysis[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/651345-race-college-admissions-faq-discussion-3-a-49.html#post1062655144]analysis[/url</a>] that I conducted just over a year ago of the Yale SCEA 2013 results thread on CC:</p>
<p>Total sample size: 148</p>
<p>Asian sample size: 58
Average SAT score for an Asian acceptee (17 were accepted): 2347</p>
<p>White sample size: 52
Average SAT score for a White acceptee (16 were accepted): 2353</p>
<p>The acceptance rate over various ranges for Whites and Asians: </p>
<p>It is, however, important to note that I have no way of confirming the claims of those in the original results thread, nor should we immediately dismiss the issues of self-selection among the posters and the less-than-ideal sample size. Nonetheless, the results are compelling; there is no reason to believe that low-scoring acceptees would be more reluctant to post than low-scoring rejectees. </p>
<p>In totality, these data strongly suggest that the difference threshold facilitated by the metric (i.e., 10 points) dictates the difference threshold for discrimination among scores at the admissions end. At the very least, if there is a threshold for consideration, it is very high.</p>
<p>Omg did you seriously take all that time to compile some of that data and type up
that long post. Do you even have a life silverturtle? Do really think that a 2250 and 2400
will really have much of an impact in your life. I think both of those scores will not keep from
getting into a school that you like . I really think that people who are admitted would not have been rejected if their SAT scores were like 150 points lower and people who are rejected would not have been accepted if their scores were 150 points higher. Admissions people look at alot more than just scores. And I really do think 150 points don’t really matter that much compared to all the things that they look at. You should know silverturtle. I mean didn’t you spend all your precious time writing a SAT and college guide?</p>
<p>The biggest difference is that you have a 2250 - the 35 is pure speculation. The 2250 is strong enough. There is no magic score. Forget the ACT and do something more productive and for which you have a passion. That will impress Adcomms for than just another applicant passionate about taking more standardized tests.</p>
<p>I think a 35/36 is better than a 2250, but a 2350+ is probably better than a 36. And lol @ the people who complain about others having no life on this forum, when they actively spend time to log in and disseminate false information.</p>