<p>My son in 10th grade did okay on the PSAT (208) and PLAN (26) tests. He is taking SAT IIs in math and US history in May. He plans to take either the ACT or SAT I in June as well. He is a terrific math student but weaker at writing & rhetorical skills. I thought he might do better with the ACT because the essay might be easier and if he doesn't do so well, his ACT score would not have to be sent anywhere ever. However, he'd probably do okay with the SAT I and it might be good prep for the PSAT he'll retake in the fall (I am sure he'd like to have a shot at a National Merit scholarship). Taking either the ACT or SAT this spring and getting a decent score would relieve some of the pressure of Junior year and help him narrow his college search- So, he will take either the ACT or SAT I, but which one would be best? Any advice?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, he will take either the ACT or SAT I, but which one would be best? Any advice?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's too early to make a decision between the two tests. I would recommend to take the ACT before the summer, start a reasonable self-prep program during this summer, and then take the SAT in early fall (in tandem with the PSAT.)</p>
<p>Make sure to check which one of the Math tests is more appropriate for your son.</p>
<p>208 is very good for a sophomore. If he were a junior that would most likely be commended. In some states, it's probably semi finalist. Assuming he took the PSAT in October 2006, his October 2007 score should be higher since he will have a whole additional year of school. I would recommend that he take the ACT in June to see how he does. If he scores high enough, he won't have to take the SAT at all. However, he could still take the SAT in the fall-not sure what the schedule is but the college board website will have that info. With a 208 score as a sophomore, I think his chances of being NMSF as a junior are good. For juniors, a 208 is probably about 98th percentile.</p>
<p>This comes up frequently, but in case you haven't seen it.... Don't put the high school down when you register for the ACT. If your son does well and you want to share his score, you can always do that later. Many high schools put the score stickers on transcripts and colleges will still see scores even if you don't send them directly to that university.</p>
<p>Take both.</p>
<p>I know this is a minority viewpoint, but this is what I plan to do with kid #2 vis a vis ACT vs SAT. </p>
<p>Kid #1 took the SAT I and II's first. She knew immediatly that she hadn't done as well on the SAT as she had hoped, and she took the ACT almost immediately thereafter. Bingo, she did beautifully. The ACT was just a better test for her. She would have liked to send only her ACT and SAT II's to colleges, BUT because she had to send the ACT PLUS SAT II's to several of her schools, she was stuck sending along her SAT I score as well, since ETS -- unlike ACT -- forces students to send every score every time! </p>
<p>So here is Plan B: Kid # 2 will take the ACT FIRST. It the scores look good, he will never, ever take the SAT I (which will also avoid the fun we had with the ETS losing Kid #1's scores and then trying to emulate a Kafka novel in explaining where the missing scores had gone and what they were going to do to retrieve them in a manner ranging from rude to merely officious.) There are no schools on kid #2's tentative list that require the SAT I, and with a good ACT score, why bother?</p>
<p>The only real upside to taking SAT in the face of a solid ACT score is related to the National Merit/Presidential Scholar programs. But it seems to me that the risk of having an off SAT sitting outweighs the benfits for a majority of students. IMHO.</p>
<p>CCSurfer: That is precisely what my son did. Took the ACT first and scored well. He will eventually have to take the SAT I to confirm for NMF, but kids in the Class of 2008 have until December 2007 to do that. Also, kids who take ACTs only are in the running for the Presidential Scholars Program. <a href="http://www.ed.gov/programs/psp/eligibility.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.ed.gov/programs/psp/eligibility.html</a></p>
<p>The big advantage of the ACT is that if you take it once, score poorly, and decide to shift your focus to the SAT I, no college ever has to know you took the ACT. But with the SAT, the student doesn't get to decide which sittings to submit: CB reports all of your scores to colleges you designate.</p>
<p>CCSurfer, that's what my D did also. Quiltguru advised last year that she had her D take one ACT practice test and one SAT practice test and that's what we did. She scored so much higher on the ACT and her score was good enough that she will not take the SAT. She is going to take SAT II's. She doesn't have to worry about NMF.</p>
<p>It was in USA Today that every school in the nation now will take the ACT. So no reason not to take the test that is best for you.</p>
<p>CC Surfer, wjb, deb922, that's what my kid is doing too. It's a trend!</p>
<p>Same situation with Zoosergirl. We're definitely having Zoosersister take the ACT first and see. If she does well enough, no SATI for her.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It was in USA Today that every school in the nation now will take the ACT. So no reason not to take the test that is best for you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While it's true that --after Harvey Mudd and Wake F. "caved in"-- every school should accept the ACT, this does not mean that all schools would look at the ACT in the same way. You may want to read how Princeton views students who lived in a SAT-centric area and decided not to take it. </p>
<p>But the real question remains: are the 'strategies' of score choice worth the brain damage?</p>
<p>Why was score choice abandoned by the TCB? Because its REAL clients didn't give a rat's behind about it and served no real purpose in admissions. For what it is worth, the quicker one abandons the idea that fewer scores are better and that there is a special value attached to the "no-prep-one-time-sitting" cachet, the better he will be. </p>
<p>So, why worry about the SAT scores being sent, especially if there is a NMF possibility? </p>
<p>The key to ALL of this is to compile the BEST set of scores possible and NOT worry about multiple administrations or ... the ACT versus SAT debate. At the end of the pilgrimage through the arcane world of standardized tests, the only thing that matters are your BEST scores.</p>
<p>Taking the ACT first was one of the first things I learned on CC. It's worked out very well for my S. He has no plans to take the SAT. Remember, if necessary for NMSQT, SAT can be taken in December after apps have been sent out, so colleges never need to see a SAT score unless the student wants to send the Dec. score. 2VU made a good point. Don't put your high school down to receive scores.</p>
<p>Xiggi --</p>
<p>The issue here wasn't the erroneous notion that fewer scores would be better, but that with highly selective colleges, D would have preferred not to have to reveal an SAT I that was not over the 75th percentile of their admitted students when she had an ACT that was over the top. If the student takes the SAT I, the student is forced to reveal it if SAT II's are required. The only choices then are to hope that colleges ignore the SAT I score in favor of the far superior ACT, or to redo the SAT I when it seems a far better expenditure of time to try to improve the already superior ACT. Hence, the decision to deep six the SAT I altogether if the ACT, taken first, looks good.</p>
<p>"The key to ALL of this is to compile the BEST set of scores possible and NOT worry about multiple administrations or ... the ACT versus SAT debate."</p>
<p>Xiggi, would you seriously advise a kid who hit a homerun on the ACT to then ALSO take the time to prep for the SAT? Why? I'm not "worried" about multiple administrations - I just don't see the value in my kid spending yet more time on test prep. And if the ACT score is unlikely to be beaten by the SAT score, why wouldn't you just say you have the BEST score in hand and move on?</p>
<p>You also seem to take both sides here - I should consider how Princeton will view an SAT-area kid taking the ACT, but I shouldn't worry about the ACT vs SAT debate? </p>
<p>In my kid's case, the result wasn't a matter of strategy. He signed up to take the ACT first, and then when the score came in it became apparent that there wasn't any need to take the SAT I (or the ACT again, for that matter). So he can move on to the SAT II's and (hopefully) be done w/it. But now that he's in the place he's in, the strategy of ACT first makes sense to me.</p>
<p>CCsurfer, I understood your position and your earlier post. </p>
<p>We simply have slightly different opinions regarding the 'worrying part' about revealing lower scores from earlier tests. I really believe that the most selective schools do discount --if not ignore-- the lower scores, especially if they were earned in 9th, 10th, or even 11th grade at a time where students do ... practice. It is a given that the majority of schools openly recommend to take the standardized tests multiple times and that they recognize the higher scores. </p>
<p>Some students have reported great successes in admissions with one single trial or very few attempts; others have enjoyed similar success 'despite' taking the tests several times.</p>
<p>I do not think there is a universal method or strategy that works for everyone. My take is that way too much attention is paid to the 'perception' of the test scores by schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Xiggi, would you seriously advise a kid who hit a homerun on the ACT to then ALSO take the time to prep for the SAT?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Jrpar, the short and the long answer is ... NO! I have always recommended to try to obtain a score that is in line with the student qualifications and expectations. It is obvious that a student who hit a homerun on the ACT should not invest in additional preparation for the SAT. On the other hand, I have recommended students who had a 1500+ SAT to try the ACT or retake the SAT! Some of those discussions (and results) have been documented in this forum.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I've followed many of your SAT related posts :). I was just trying to clarify what you were saying in the post above.</p>
<p>But now I'm curious why you would tell a kid who aced the ACT to not then take the time to prep for the SAT, but you would tell students w/1500+ [I would also call this a homerun] to try the ACT. Sorry to be difficult! But what's the difference?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry to be difficult! But what's the difference?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No problem at all. Without looking back at the old posts, this is what I remember: the students had scores of around 1500, but a bit lopsided with perfect verbal and lower math scores AND were top math students. Since raising math to a "close" to perfect score is easier than raising the verbal components, I thought there was an opportunity of raising the scores to what I called a "out of the park HR." Had the 1500 been a 800M + 700V or a 750M/V, the 'advice' might have been different.</p>
<p>PS I was also thinking that the ACT HR are 35 or 36. :)</p>
<p>Xiggi wrote: "You may want to read how Princeton views students who lived in a SAT-centric area and decided not to take it. "</p>
<p>Where can I read this?</p>
<p>Thanks xiggi.</p>