<p>An article by LA Times writer Gail Holland describes how the number of students taking the ACT is closing in on the number of SAT-takers:
[quote]
The ACT was once the overlooked stepsister to the SAT. It was popular in the Midwest and the South but less established on the East and West coasts. Now, however, the ACT is growing faster than its rival, not only nationally but also in SAT strongholds such as California, where 50% more students in the class of 2008 took the ACT than their 2004 counterparts. Nationwide, the ACT was taken by 1.4 million students in the 2008 class, compared with 1.5 million who took the SAT, according to the test companies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A CC discussion thread is quoted in the article:
[quote]
"I've heard that at the top schools -- Ivies and whatnot -- many applicants submit both a SAT and an ACT . . . does doing so make you a more favorable candidate than a person who submitted just an ACT or vice versa?" a student wrote last week on the popular Web discussion forum College Confidential. Most colleges would answer no.
<p>(Since a lot of wordsmiths frequent this forum, I thought I'd point out that one edit by the SF Chronicle was to change "poor stepsister" to "overlooked stepsister". Was that a PC move to avoid using "poor" as a pejorative? More importantly, will step-siblings still find the allusion problematic? :))</p>
<p>My school board started this major initiative a few years ago to revamp schools with the IB program. The guy from the Department of Education coordinating the program talked to our class about the program, and when someone asked about the SAT he told us to take the ACT because it was fairer, especially to internationals (I live in Canada).</p>
<p>But I think, in general, the students that take both don’t score that differently. S took SAT in December '06 and ACT in May '07 and the scores were similar (even though there was a 6 month period between the tests).</p>
<p>I regret never attempting to try the ACT. It was one of my mistakes when applying to college… I honestly think I would have done better then my SAT’s.</p>
<p>flomatiks, you are wrong about that. They ARE rival tests operated by College Board and ACT, Inc. – two distinct organizations with very different philosophies, especially regarding customer service. (Just search the CC archives for many woeful tales about dealing with CB and how they nickle-and-dime you to death, lol!)</p>
<p>Dear everyone : Recently, I was asked by the College Board to interview for a position in New York City (just off Columbus Circle) for a role with the SAT program. Two things I can tell you specifically from that interview process : first is that the College Board is very aware that the ACT is attracting a broader clientele (thereby hurting the College Board’s bottom line) and second is that the SAT committee is very concerned that their test has become too narrow to adequately reflect the preparatory educational needs of most colleges and universities.</p>
<p>Plus CB is dumb enough not to realize the inefficiency of using a freakin 2 page answer sheet on the SAT so the scores come out much later than the ACT</p>
<p>at my school, people who do poorly on the SAT use the ACT as a cushion. people who score 2000 on the SATs can easily score 33+ on the ACT. most of my teachers think colleges still value SATs more though…</p>
<p>Does it ever happen that people do well in the ACT first and then do poorly in the SAT later? I think the fact that you didn’t do as well as you thought in the SAT first makes you be more “primed” when you do take the ACT a few months later. In general you would have also done better in the SAT if you took it again a few months later. Does this hold true?</p>
<p>The question was asked whether taking both tests was more favorable – what about the opposite? I’m scheduled to take the ACT next month, and from my PLAN score and scores I’ve gotten on practice tests, I’m estimating a score between 32-35. Is it worth taking the SAT if the colleges in which I’m planning on enrolling accept both tests? Or, if I achieved a less than stellar score on the SAT, could that possibly hurt my chances if I was borderline on being accepted to a highly selective school?</p>
<p>To the previous poster who asked if people score better on the ACT and then worse on the SAT, so far I am your answer. I scored a 34 on the April ACT, and a 2140 on the May SAT. I plan to retake in Oct. however.</p>
<p>^^A similar score would have been around 2265. What would you attribute the lower score to? Could you have been overconfident or was it that much different? I’m not leading up to anything. I’m just curious.</p>
<p>Not true, actually. The vast majority of test takers score in approximately the same range on both tests. Both tests produce score distributions that fall more or less along a perfect bell curve – i.e., very few at the low end, most in the middle, and very few at the high end. There is also no evidence for the notion that colleges still place more value on the SAT. Virtually all colleges state that they accept both tests and weigh them equally. There are also many objective observers who think that the ACT is a better measure than the SAT of what a student has learned and whether they will succeed at college level classes. Finally, by no means is the ACT easy – it tests some material that the SAT doesn’t test at all (e.g., science reasoning), tests other material (e.g., math) at a higher level than the SAT does, and the time pressure on the ACT is brutal.</p>