ACT vs. SAT: Is it true??

[gbesq]

<p>

You might want to see this thread for more info and you can decide for yourself:
How are ACT and SAT even considered equal?

</p>

<p>Yes, by all means read that thread. You will find that cooljazz gets skewered by numerous other posters for posting opinions on this topic without any facts to back up his arguments.</p>

[cooljazz]

<p>Gbesq:
Again you ignore the fact that the population of students that takes the ACT is vastly different from the SAT population. Simply pointing out numbers does not prove that it is harder to get a perfect score on the ACT. For example, less people get 2390s than 2400s. Does that mean it’s more difficult to get a 2390? Of course not. </p>

<p>If you see the thread, you will notice the gbesq and the other ACT-supporters became hostile and defensive as new ideas challenged their own. After a while, it’s impossible to reason with these supporters. I just want to help future applicants and say that the SAT is more respected than the ACT in elite college admissions.</p>

[cooljazz]

<p>Also gbesq, if you want to pretend that the Midwest and the South are more competitive in elite college admissions than the coasts, be my guest. I don’t think many people who have been on CC for long would agree.</p>

[gbesq]

<p>^Oh, please. If you read the thread, you’ll find that cooljazz’s “source” for his posts is an unnamed adcom officer at an unnamed elite school who supposedly told him that the ACT is not viewed as favorably as the SAT. We’re all still waiting for cooljazz to explain why virtually every college and university in the United States STATES IN WRITING on their respective admissions websites, that they will accept either test and do not have a preference for one over the other. So far, cooljazz’s response has been the equivalent of crickets chirping. Cooljazz, by all means post if you like, but post FACTS, not innuendo.</p>

[gbesq]

<p>

if you want to pretend that the Midwest and the South are more competitive in elite college admissions than the coasts, be my guest

</p>

<p>Hmmm, let’s see. Elite schools in the South and Midwest, huh? Duke, WUSTL, Rice, U of Chicago, Emory, Davidson, Northwestern, University of Michigan, University of Texas, University of Wisconsin, University of Illinois/Urbana-Champaign, Davidson, Kenyon, Emory, Vanderbilt, Carleton, Grinnell, etc., etc. Shall I go on?</p>

[jackbenimble4]

<p>Cooljazz,</p>

<p>How do you explain the [SAT-ACT</a> Concordance Tables](<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/sat-act]SAT-ACT”>Score Comparisons – SAT Suite | College Board) ?</p>

<p>Is CollegeBoard lying to us too, along with every college in the United States?</p>

[cooljazz]

<p>

@cooljazz

Colleges do not say anything against the ACT because they are private institutions looking for profit and prestige. They want to maximize the number of applicants, and thereby maxmize the money they make from application fees. Also, they want the most applicants in order to lower their acceptance rates and increase their own prestige. Colleges also undoubtedly have lucrative deals with the ACT company themselves.</p>

<p>It may alarm you that colleges are not being perfectly honest, but remember their statements about race and admissions. Also, they are not being dishonest per se, because they do accept the ACT. It is just not valued quite as highly. </p>

<p>These are the facts. Sorry to all the advocates of the ACT who maybe did not do so well on the SAT.

</p>

<p>And Gbesq, your demands to find out the exact details of these corporate connections make you look foolish. Not every high-profile business dealing can be found on the internet <em>gasp</em></p>

[gbesq]

<p>

Colleges also undoubtedly have lucrative deals with the ACT company themselves.

</p>

<p>Yes, no doubt the unnamed admissions officer at the unnamed elite institution that you spoke of was involved in negotiating these secret lucrative deals. Of course it makes sense that an elite institution like Harvard that has an endowment that’s larger than the GDP of some nations would put its reputation at risk by inking such a deal in secret for the money. What’s next, cooljazz? Are you going to tell us that the President of Yale is named Beldar and hails from the planet Remulak?</p>

[jackbenimble4]

<p>Cooljazz,</p>

<p>Do you realize you’re being just as close-minded as you purport “ACT advocates” to be? What you’re suggesting is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. Forgive us if we don’t immediately agree without any substantive evidence. </p>

<p>The application fees barely cover the costs of reviewing thousands of applications. That’s the most tenuous argument I’ve heard yet. In addition, some colleges like Case Western Reserve University don’t even charge an application fee. Considering colleges PAY students’ tuitions to attend, they are not in it for profit. “Lucrative deals” with ACT are not going to stop the colleges from pursuing the most competent students as possible.</p>

[UMTYMP_student]

<p>Regarding point 4 in post 19 gbesq makes an interesting point, however I think the data suggests the SAT is favored. According, to the concordance charts a 1510 on the SAT (CR+M) is equal to a 34 on the ACT. While, a 1510 is the 99.079th percentile on the SAT, a 34 is the 99.321th percentile on the ACT. Thus it seems like the SAT is favored because a considerably lower percentile on it is equal to a considerably higher percentile on the ACT.</p>

[u_ername]

<p>SAT=ACT in terms of admissions</p>

<p>SAT>ACT in terms of testing.</p>

<p>SAT>ACT in terms of difficulty</p>

<p>SAT>ACT in terms of overall design and thoughfulness</p>

<p>SAT>ACT as an indicator of academic strength (READ: not sucess/college performance)</p>

<p>SAT>ACT.</p>

[Rtgrove123]

<p>gbesq-</p>

<p>Ok, your facts are compelling to say the least. I am open to admitting I was wrong, which I was (take note cooljazz). All I was basin my opinion off of was personal experience (I just think the SAT is harder and consider my high SAT score a fluke), other people (my personal favorite was a kid with a 36 on the ACT and a 1950 on the SAT), and other people on CC (see cooljazz). However, the facts don’t normally lie, so you are probably right. At the same time though, I do think there are a minority of admisson officers who would say they treat the tests equally but have some underlying bias. But that would be a small group prbly.</p>

[gbesq]

<p>^In any statistical cohort, there will always be some deviation from the norm – hence, the 36 ACT/1950 SAT (or the 2340 SAT/26 ACT) is to be expected. But as I said in an earlier post, this is atypical of ACT/SAT concordance and examples of such are anecdotal at best. Despite what cooljazz may think, I am not trashing the SAT. It’s as good a test – and as bad a test – as the ACT. I am merely saying that the numbers and the facts are what they are and there is simply no evidence that the ACT is an “easier” test than the SAT or that adcoms at the nation’s colleges and universities take the ACT any less seriously than they do the SAT. As several other posters on this and other threads have also pointed out, cooljazz’s notion that the elite colleges and universities have secret and lucrative deals with the ACT (even though they supposedly don’t respect the ACT to the same degree as the SAT) is simply ludicrous. There is no financial incentive for any college or university to have such an arrangement, nor would a board of directors of any college or university be foolish enough to enter into any such arrangement.</p>

[The_Government]

<p>They are looked at EXACTLY THE SAME! A 2400 is equal to a 36 in the minds of adcoms. </p>

<p>[I’ve talked to people who work in admissions, and that is what they told me]</p>

[bclintonk]

<p>

@Rtgrove123

Now, while there are clear exceptions, the study body in the midwest (I am a proud Nebraskan with a 35 on the ACT and 2340 on the SAT btw) is traditionally not quite as high caliber and academic as the costal student body that takes the SAT in much higher numbers.

</p>

<p>Yeah, right. In fact, the only states that perennially rank among the top 10 in BOTH SAT and ACT scores are Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa—all in the Midwest. Speak for your own state, bub.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

Yes, it’s true. The national score reports for both tests indicate that it’s actually more difficult statistically to score a 36 composite on the ACT than it is to get a 2400 on the SAT. The tests take different approaches to assessing whether students are ready for college level work, but don’t fool yourself – neither test is easy.

A 36 on the ACT is a stellar score but over 600 people have a 36 on the ACT this year whereas less than 300 people have a 2400 on the SAT this year, despite the fact that the higher-scoring demogrpahics tend towards the SAT. A 36 on the ACT is more equivalent to a ~2350 IMO. Still a superb score but I don’t think it is quite as difficult as that 2400.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

Yeah, right. In fact, the only states that perennially rank among the top 10 in BOTH SAT and ACT scores are Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa—all in the Midwest. Speak for your own state, bub.

Oh please! Only 3% of Iowa students even took the SAT. You consider that reliable data?</p>

[zweebopp]

<p>Although schools SAY they are equal, what about variables less than perfect? Does a 35 equal 2370 or a 2340? Does a 34 equal something between 2200 and 2300? Does someone know the equivilant numbers? What does a 33 equal?</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

Although schools SAY they are equal, what about variables less than perfect? Does a 35 equal 2370 or a 2340? Does a 34 equal something between 2200 and 2300? Does someone know the equivilant numbers? What does a 33 equal?

It’s hard to draw equivalence lines because they are very different tests. With that said, I think you can make approximate tiers - A 35 is probably in the low 2300s, a 24 is probably in the mid 2200s, a 33 is probably in the mid-high 2100s.</p>

[TheAscendancy]

<p>a 24 is probably in the mid 2200s
^lol</p>