A CC ACT/SAT Conversion Chart

<p>So I've been noticing the trend that ACT tends to be much higher than the equivalent posted on other sites so I decided to dig through some stats here. Using numerous chance threads/comparison threads/etc. I compiled data with a minimum 15 scores per ACT composite score (some scores such as a 33 and 34 had upwards of 30 scores of data, 36 only had 8). </p>

<p>I had to draw the line at 28 since there simply wasn't enough data easily found to get a decent estimate. The results were very interesting needless to say.</p>

<p>(wiki equivalent in parenthesis)</p>

<p>28 - 1855 (1860)
29 - 1923 (1920)
30 - 1962 (1980)
31 - 2003 (2040)
32 - 2065 (2130)
33 - 2096 (2190)
34 - 2156 (2260)
35 - 2230 (2340)
36 - 2298 (2400)</p>

<p>What's interesting to me is that in midwest schools a 30 ACT seems to be worth far more than a 1962 SAT (my 1960 is at the bottom end of the middle 50 at Michigan, while my 30 is towards the top (mid range 27-31)).</p>

<p>Michigan is a state where the ACT is the primary test. The reason the middle 50 SAT is much higher than the middle ACT is because the OOS pool (which is generally stronger than the instate) brings up the SAT scores. Only about half of students submit their SAT scores to Michigan also.</p>

<p>SAT-ACT</a> Concordance Tables</p>

<p>Sax: What's your point?</p>

<p>I hope that's not right because I thought my 28 was closer to mid 1900's.</p>

<p>i got a 2010 and a 31 act. i think ill use my act</p>

<p>Claire1016: That chart basically shows what you'd get if you divided your score by 36 an multiplied it by 1600 or 2400. I highly doubt that the collegeboard did extensive research into the actual concordence of scored because if they did they'd find that your 28 was indeed closer to the mid 1900s at most schools, especially in the midwest. I feel that the percentile gives you a more accurate conversion from SAT scores to ACT score.</p>

<p>nd09 - this is a very interesting study you've done here. Without flaming the ACT too much, I'm from a midwest state and see the same exact phenomenon around me, with kids who wouldn't break 2000 on the SAT and yet score 34+. VERY RARELY have I seen the opposite occur, with the ACT score being considerably lower than the SAT one.</p>

<p>And I agree with titan on the use of percentiles, though quite frankly, I get the feeling that the ACT percentiles are distorted as well. If the ACT were taken more commonly on the coasts I'd imagine the percentiles would change, with 36 dropping from 99+ to maybe 97 and so on.</p>

<p>I'm not sure percentiles are the perfect way to do it either. For example the 97th percentile on the ACT is a 30 while the 97th percentile on the SAT is a 2100. I believe this stems from the fact that the applicant pool taking the SAT is much stronger than the applicant pool taking the ACT. That's not to say the 'inner' states of the US are stupid (there are many amazing midwestern applicants on this site alone) however with the powerhouse states such as NY, CA, MA, TX, NJ, FL, etc. all being predominatly SAT states it raises the percentiles a lot.</p>

<p>I wish I had more data to work with but it looks like the collegeboard chart put out was somewhat crudely done. Like Titan said, just divide the SAT score by 2400 and multiply by 36 and you get a score that matches up very closely with what CB put out. IMO the chart is way too generous to the ACT with what I've seen.</p>

<p>congrats to nd09 though for doing all of that work for the CC correlation.</p>

<p>nd09: actually, you are saying that the midwest states are dumb which I completely disagree with. Saying that the SAT 97% is worth more than the ACT 97% because more kids from the northeast take the SAT is pure New England elitism.</p>

<p>No I did not say midwest kids are dumb. However it is no secret that college admissions is much more competitive on the east and west coasts so IMO the percentiles are not equal.</p>

<p>This chart is pretty telling. The 97th percentile thing is also ridiculous. I hope colleges don't really look at ACT and SATs equally, even if they say they do--it is clearly much more difficult to get a high score on the SAT than the ACT.</p>

<p>"it is clearly much more difficult to get a high score on the SAT than the ACT." </p>

<p>yes, clearly. lmao. the chart is based exclusively on CCers. IMO, it's easier to study for the ACT than the SAT. And CCers being overachievers and studying a lot would naturally do better on the ACT, which is an achievement test not a reasoning test. also, i know plenty of people, including myself my first try, who scored worse on the ACT than the SAT.</p>

<p>People seems to forget that SAT = 2/3 English, while ACT = 1/2 English</p>