<p>“There is really no logical reason for them to favor one test over the other”</p>
<p>Schools that consider aptitude more important might favor the SAT, and schools that consider knowledge more important might favor the ACT. Schools are not all alike, and neither are their students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I almost agree with this, but not quite, as I think it unfairly short-changes the ACT. It’s not so much substantive “knowledge” the colleges are looking for, but perhaps more precisely validation of academic achievement in HS. Many colleges say—and IMO actually do believe—that success in HS classes is the single best predictor of success in college-level classes. The ACT, being somewhat more substantive, validates the content of those HS classes. The SAT Reasoning Test, historically an “aptitude” (or “intelligence”?) test and not an “achievement” test as the ACT historically was, does not perform this validation function very effectively; many a brilliant slacker has performed very well on the SAT I, but that’s less true on the ACT which does require the substantive knowledge a diligent student should have acquired in HS. That’s why we have SAT IIs, which attempt to fill in the missing bit of information the SAT I doesn’t provide. And that’s why many colleges will accept EITHER the SAT I and SAT IIs OR the ACT, without requiring ACT-takers to take SAT IIs (though a small handful do require SAT IIs whether the SAT or ACT is taken as the basic test). It’s complicated by several other factors, including regional emphases on one test or the other, and different score reporting cost structures which would (arguably unfairly) penalize ACT-takers if they are also required to take SAT IIs. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, I’m inclined to think the SAT I + SAT II + HS grades gives a slightly more refined view of a student’s native capacities and accomplishments than the ACT + HS grades alone, partly just because the scoring scale is more finely calibrated and because there are so many more scores to look at. But maybe I’m biased by the fact that my own D tends to score slightly higher on SAT I & II. Nonetheless, I think colleges that say they’re indifferent as between the two are going to make every effort to give the two tests truly equal treatment, because their own credibility is on the line.</p>
<p>If someone is applying to under-top-20 but good schools and has taken both tests and scored within a high range for a college (both scores good, even if slightly different from each other), do people send scores from both tests, or only one? </p>
<p>Seems like it might round out the package for them to see strong SAT and ACT scores, especially if some other aspects of the application are not as strong. Or would it seem like overkill to send multiple sittings of both tests (assuming the school doesn’t allow score choice)? - And if they don’t allow score choice, do you have to send all the scores from all the tests taken anyway or does that mean you only send ALL SATs - OR - all ACTs?</p>
<p>How ignorant. There is no proof that the ACT is inferior to the SAT. </p>
<p>I do believe that some schools may have a bias due to the amount of money that is spent promoting the SAT, but one test is not better than the other, only different.</p>
<p>With that said, I believe you should send the scores that best represent you and your achievements. The ACT is more achievement based as opposed to the SAT which tends to be more about using your critical thinking skills. They are just different styles of tests, but one is not better than the other. An 800 on one section is just as good as a 36 on the other.</p>
<p>Also, I have not seen one top notch school that does not accept the ACT.</p>
<p>You guys have to realize where the skepticism is coming from.</p>
<p>It’s not just regional biases that have people confused. The fact is that the SAT and ACT are two completely different tests and measure different things. A top college would probably never state an SAT/ACT bias, but based on general numbers it’s easy to assume that a 34+ on the ACT, though phenomenal, is not quite as revered as a 2300+ on the SAT. You have to take into account several factors that differentiate the tests:</p>
<p>1) Colleges look at the ACT compositely and they look at the SAT by section. If you’re not a strong reader, you can better mask your weaknesses with the ACT.
2) Colleges don’t require subject tests with the ACT in order to attract geographical diversity. I would wager that you are at a disadvantage from an admissions standpoint if you’re applying to top schools from the tri-state area with only the ACT.
3) ACT composites are rounded at sharper levels than the SAT. It is less precise, as I would put it.
4) As mentioned before, they measure different skill-sets. SAT is reasoning; ACT is an application of leaned skills (plus some reasoning in the science section, which I believe is the ACT’s closest equivalent to the SAT).</p>
<p>They may be weighed “equally” (whatever the hell that means) but they are not weighed in the same way, for what it’s worth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think this is correct. The colleges get the section subscores with the ACT report. Why wouldn’t they look at them? Most colleges are not very transparent about their evaluation criteria, but one that is, the University of Michigan, is very clear that they’ll look at subscores on both the ACT and SAT. Here’s what they say about their evaluation procedure:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the University of Michigan takes the time to pore over ACT subscores, there’s no reason to think other, even more selective colleges wouldn’t do so. You can’t “mask” a weak ACT reading subscore; it will be there right on the page, staring the adcom in the face.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assume by “the tri-state area” you mean NY-NJ-CT? FYI, Chicago has its own “tri-state area,” so the term is not going to be universally recognized as referring to NYC’s tri-state area by people outside its immediate region. If you are referring to the SAT-dominated NYC area, you bring up an interesting point. I find it more plausible that ACT-only applicants from SAT-dominant areas might be greeted with a raised eyebrow by adcoms, who might reasonably feel justified in assuming that the applicant probably declined to submit SATs because they’re not as good as the ACT scores. Just as adcoms at highly selective test-optional schools like Bowdoin might reasonably infer that an applicant who declines to submit any test scores probably does so because the test scores are not as strong as the rest of the application. </p>
<p>But that’s very different from saying schools prefer the SAT over the ACT in general. Nor is it clear that that even the ACT-submitter from an SAT-dominant area is at a significant admissions disadvantage, since if that same applicant submitted both sets of scores, it’s the higher score, ex hypothesis the ACT, that would be considered. And note that the skepticism can run both ways. If a kid from Minnesota—where most HS seniors take the ACT but only a small handful take the SAT—submits only SATs, the school would be equally justified in assuming the ACT scores are not as strong. Will that hurt? Well, it probably depends on how strong the submitted SAT scores are. Same for the ACT scores submitted by the NY kid.</p>
<p>I think it does depend on the region. Since most midwesterners take the ACT the midwest colleges prefer ti b/c most people are submitting it, which means there’s more ACT scores to weight it against. Say you got a 36, and out of 15,000 applicants, you were the only one…that looks amazing. But what if you got a 2400 and only 1,000 submitted SAT scores. Sure it’ll look great(amazing actually) but since fewer students submitted it, they won’t have as many to compare you with SATwise. It also works conversely. the only 2400 SAT out of 15,000 will appear better than the only 36ACT out of 1,000/</p>
<p>
Forgot what thread it was, but Michelle Hernandez posted here that many top colleges only care about the composite score for the ACT. It’s part of the reason why comparatively fewer schools superscore the ACT.</p>
<p>Colleges look at far more than the composite scores on the ACT. </p>
<p>They will see the sub-scores too. My son did very well on the science section and started getting all kinds of stuff from engineering schools etc… They definitely look at the sub-scores so that puts it on par with the SAT. </p>
<p>My son has to show all four scores plus his writing score on the ACT plus writing so it’s theoretically no different. There is an English, reading, science, math score that make up the composite and then there is a writing score that is separate. </p>
<p>Also the common application that most schools use specifically ask you to self report each section of the ACT on the application.</p>
<p>Perhaps I’m overstating it, and yes; it’s obvious that colleges can and will see how your ACT breaks down. But take a look:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/412175-crazy-sat-idea-2.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/412175-crazy-sat-idea-2.html</a>
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/4862338-post24.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/4862338-post24.html</a>
The SATs and ACTs are looked at differently - literally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many of the most selective colleges, in fact, DO NOT look at the ACT subscores and will acknowledge that directly.
Probably because the only the ACT composite is used for ranking purposes.</p>
<p>Ok…how bout this? Most elite schools superscore the SAT but not the ACT. If a student gets a 2340 in a single sitting, wont that look better than getting a 35 (the corresponding ACT score) in one shot.</p>
<p>It’s kinda hard for even the best schools not to notice all of the components of an ACT when in fact on the common application you self report each part of the ACT’s subscores and they also appear right there on your high school transcript too.</p>
<p>Some need a dose of reality. Anyone with a 2340 SAT or 35 ACT is going to be considered having a stellar score and they won’t sit around debating which is better. Sometimes students just want to believe that some huge debate goes on internally during admissions over the applicants which comes down to which score or test is better and it does not happen. If they see a 2340 SAT or 35 ACT, they will just note the score is stellar and go on to the next thing which is important, courses and grades. It is the same thing like arguing whether a 2240 is really better than a 2220. That debate does not happen either.</p>
<p>^ right, which tells me that they won’t be spending a lot of time reflecting on each of the ACT’s subscores – self-reported on the app. or not.</p>
<p>drusba that is an excellent point and I totally agree with you.</p>
<p>broetchen, the only reason that I bought up the sub-score is that someone earlier in the thread said that the SAT has different sections and components and when you only look at the composite score of the ACT you don’t know where ones weaknesses are. </p>
<p>I pointed out that you can and do have to list your different scores for the different parts on the common app and they will definitely see that. I agree that is someone has a 35 ACT they may not care about subscores.</p>
<p>In the midwest, the ACT is a lot more common than the SAT; on the coasts, it’s the opposite.</p>
<p>Universities are fine with either…they aren’t going to penalize a huge chunk of qualified applicants in either direction.</p>
<p>Ad comms are perfectly familiar with and comfortable with both tests.</p>
<p>Now I’m not saying that the SAT>ACT or ACT>SAT, but this
Does not make sense at all. Seriously.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Just because schools want more applicants, doesn’t mean they want more admits. They can and do give false hope to some possible applicants who would otherwise not apply.</p></li>
<li><p>They aren’t penalizing anyone… people from the mid-west can still take the SATs, and it’s not like students who take the ACTs are never admitted…</p></li>
</ol>
<p>When people ask whether schools weigh the ACT and SAT equally, they don’t mean that ACT students are auto-rejects…</p>
<p>I interpret this question as do admissions officers view certain ACT scores lower than the published chart for SAT/ACT conversion. This could be 10 points lower, or it could be 100 points lower. </p>
<p>Either way, a 36 on the ACT is still clearly great. It may not be a 2400, but it certainly won’t stop them from getting in HYPS. ACT students aren’t penalized, it’s just that their score of 35 is worse/easier to get than a 2340 or whatever it is on the chart.</p>
<p>They would not be put at a disadvantage at all if they truly believe that an ACT score of 35 is not worth 2340. Obviously they’re not going to penalize you simply because you took the ACTs…</p>
<p>Anyway, IMO the SATs definitely do require much more than the fluffy ACT, so it’s certainly possible that admins view SATs a bit better. However, since they said SAT=ACT, I don’t think they’re lying.</p>
<p>So if only one is high, a high SAT shows cleverness (smart lazy? better not submit the ACT!), and a high ACT shows diligence?</p>