<p>I have taken the ACT twice, but I got the same score each time. Would it be bad if I told people my superscore since it is two points higher? (I did 6 points worse on my Reading the second time around.) Any opinions are welcome!</p>
<p>Most Colleges will super score you. That seems to be the most important thing about ACT score. what you tell other people is up to you! If it makes you feel better tell them the higher score.</p>
<p>Most schools do not super score the ACT. Some do. Search and you can find the list. Many more super score the SAT.</p>
<p>Here is the list</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.freetestprep.com/blog/resources/list-of-colleges-and-universities-that-superscore-the-act-test/”>http://www.freetestprep.com/blog/resources/list-of-colleges-and-universities-that-superscore-the-act-test/</a></p>
<p>It indicates that well over 65% superscore the ACT :)>- </p>
<p>Most schools do not superscore ACT. The schools that do superscore ACT (or in someway similar to superscoring) are on the list above. Many many more schools that do not superscore ACT at all are not on that list at all. I don’t see how you come up with the 65% calculation. </p>
<p>Whatever, @billcsho. </p>
<p>if you have a better list, please provide it and educate all of us!</p>
<p>The only schools that matter are the ones the OP is applying too.</p>
<p>This is the list I also recommended previously if one want to find the schools that do superscore ACT. There are a little bit over 100 schools on the list. Schools that do not superscore ACT are obviously not on the list. I do agree what really matter is whether the schools OP is applying is on the list or not, but OP did not disclose that in this thread. Unlike SAT, a majority of colleges in the US do not superscore ACT.</p>
<p>The ACT itself does not recommend the super-scoring of its test. According to the ACT, the composite score provides predictive validity beyond that which can be gleaned by the individual section scores alone. In fact, the ACT, while standing behind the individual section scores, believes the composite score is the most useful metric provided by the test.</p>
<p>My own speculation is that due to the volatility in the difficulty level of the individual sections from test to test, the ACT believes that super-scoring provides a misleadingly high score for students who take repeated tests. My own experience is that the ACT is not as tightly constructed as the SAT insofar as giving consistent section scores from test to test (especially in the Reading and Science sections). I have seen these scores swing wildly for students from test to test to degrees almost never seen on the SAT. </p>
<p>The inconsistent time constraints on these sections from test to test seem to be the culprit. Sit a student down for two practice tests and the Science (or Reading) section takes 32 minutes the first time and 39 minutes the second time. Since the cut-off is 35 minutes, this has a dramatic affect on the section score. I think it is intentional that students have a difficult time maxing out their individual scores in a single sitting, and that it is part of the ACT’s construction that student’s section scores tend to flip-flop from test to test.</p>
<p>Put another way, on the SAT, a student who struggles to finish the Math sections will tend to struggle similarly on every sitting, while a student who finishes the CR section with time to spare seems to always finish the CR section with time to spare. Not so on the ACT, and as a result, there appears to be an almost random component to the individual section scores that will result in an upward bias to composite scores if super-scoring is used. </p>