<p>I took the ACT and received a 30 composite, and when I went to see what that meant on the conversion tables...it was about a 2000. I was not happy.</p>
<p>But...I then found out that a 30 is 97th percentile for test takers which corresponds to a 2100-2130 for the SAT. This proved true when I compared the average scors of incoming freshmen at colleges. The middle 50% of cornell received a 1400 (2100) SAT and a 30 ACT. College</a> Search - Cornell University - SAT®, AP®, CLEP® . This held true for other colleges as well, where a 30 ACT is the same as a 2100.</p>
<p>No, at virtually every school the ACT scores are below what a straight SAT conversion would indicate. I think schools look at the % tile numbers too.</p>
<p>Schools that really care about the issue conduct their own validation studies among their own applicants. Most colleges already have a sense of how high is high enough on either brand of test to be a successful applicant.</p>
<p>That percentile stuff is inaccurate. From personal experience, most of the people who take the ACT are people who didn't score as high as they would have liked on the SAT and so they take the ACT. IF you didn't do well on the SAT, then chances are you won't do well on the ACT. That is why the percentiles for the ACT are so skewed.</p>
<p>ACT is growing rapidly, so the difference in test takers is not as great as it once was; 1.3M take ACT, 1.5M take SAT. However, a couple of states have mandated the ACT for all high schoolers, whereas the SAT is only taken by the college-bound. But, then again, if more non-college-bound students take the ACT, wouldn't the ACT matriculants to highly selective colleges have higher percentiles than SAT?</p>
<p>The Unversity of California did do its own comparison study and concurred with and still uses the Collegeboard-ACT concordance table. I think UTexas uses something close.</p>
<p>I've always been intrigued by the difference in percentiles, and asked about those differrences early in my cc life. Any thoughts from the data gurus on cc?</p>
<p>The disparity probably comes from the fact that ACT is recorded as a composite; most schools don't superscore but, more importantly, they don't record the individual test scores from math/english/reading/science. When you look at 25-75% ranges for SAT, they are recorded for math/ verbal and then combined; they are superscored, but more importantly they could reflect a person with high math/low verbal. vice-versa or both high; You never know....With ACT you know that the 75% is from single sittings from individuals....(not mixed scores...)</p>
<p>Hope that makes sense, but I can't take credit...Can't remember who, but someone on CC explained that previously on another thread....</p>
<p>That is why it "appears" that the ACT is weighted more....</p>
<p>On the other hand, most people on the east/west coasts only take the SAT regardless if they do well or not...but I do see where you are coming from. It's just that there are plenty of people doing poorly and not caring on the SAT as well.</p>
<p>Edit: Plus the coasts have waayyyy more people.</p>
<p>lol. I think colleges prefer SAT because it is more widely accepted. If you're unhappy with the conversion, take the SAT. But I would second the earlier statement that "No, at virtually every school the ACT scores are below what a straight SAT conversion would indicate. I think schools look at the % tile numbers too."</p>
<p>Everyone here takes ACT too, so sure, people might take SAT if they do poorly on ACT...but for the most part, its always the "smarter" kids taking the SAT, and potentially switching over to ACT, while everyone else just takes ACT and sticks with it. I know some advocate the ACT, but I really think that the way its treated at top schools is pretty ridiculous (ie. take ACT instead of SATI + SATIIs). People here who are not very bright at all can still score 35-36s...I just get the feeling that the ACT is a pretty bad test when people you never expect to do well in any academic/reasoning context can study their way from mid 20s to a 36.</p>
<ol>
<li>Only 350 people got a 36 last year.</li>
<li>Plenty of people study there way to a 2250+ ... trust me. It's just takes way more time/devotion then I think it deserves.</li>
</ol>
<p>Edit: Even forgetting the percentile difference which has been cleared up (thanks to those who did), a 30 on the ACT still corresponds to a 2100 on the collegeboard website. i.e. cornell/brown's average SAT is a 1400+ but a 30 act. ucla's 75th percentile sat is a 1400 but a 30 ACT. Mcgill middle 50% is a 1380 but a 30 ACT. It works +/- for most elite colleges.</p>
<p>ok well im not sure if those are entirely accurate. granted they are different tests and there are possibly other variables at hand, i didnt study for either, only took each test once ever, and i received a 31 act and a 1460 sat v+m in march and april respectively of last year. so im def. a little skeptical of these comparisons</p>
<p>@Tokenadult that is my problem! The collegeboard score comparison was done over 10 years ago, and all it did was match up the percentiles. (read all the information below the table). Now, if you would do that same comparison today...An ACT of 30 translates to between a 2100 and a 2130, which is waaayyy different then what was year ago a.k.a. on the collegeboard chart.</p>
<p>Edit: The new percentiles would match up nicely with trackdude's scores.</p>
<p>Schools generally have their own conversion charts that differ by, at most, 20 points at a given conversion interval. But all conversion charts given the ACT test higher values than the archaic and inaccurate one found on collegeboard.com.</p>