<p>I don’t think that the SAT/ACT arguement is true. I was a lazy underacheiver in HS and did much better on the ACT than the SAT. Why? It’s pretty obvious. If your a lazy overacheiver, why would you want to do a test that designed to trick you (thus you have to work harder) when there is one that is straightfoward. The lazy, yet brilliant, students are going to try hard on the SAT because it will require work, whereas the ACT doesn’t take nearly as much thinking. </p>
<p>Consider me:</p>
<p>3.2 UW
610CR 650M 610W
34R 31E 30M 26S </p>
<p>I know for a fact that I felt like I needed to think much more on the SATs just so I could understand the questions, which caused me to eventually just stop caring. The ACT was straight foward and I just answered the questions.</p>
<p>I’ve just finished a book that says the applicant should not explain any shortcomings in the essays, preferring to have a counselor do that, and just focus on the positives in the rest of the application.</p>
<p>DD’s math grades are what they are, and are legitimate, and I’m inclined to believe that she can’t explain them away to the satisfaction of an experienced adcom, and shouldn’t try to… thoughts?</p>
<p>People told me my son should not include an explanation of a bad year of grades in his essays. They said he should put the explanation in an ‘additional comments’ section. What he did–asked the reviewer to consider the ‘turn around’ he did in junior year, rather than focusing on the problems in his sophmore year.</p>
<p>This focus on the positive was a good approach, I thought, and I picked it up here on CC.</p>
<p>Maybe a variation on that would work for your daughter?</p>