<p>You are correct about how US News uses the ACT and SAT scores. However, I am not certain that what is reported is equal. Almost all schools require ACT composite scores as a measure, no mixing and matching of the best sub-scores. While they do all allow for the mixing and matching of the best SAT scores. To me this suggests that the reported SAT scores may be a bit higher percentage-wise than the ACT scores.</p>
<p>However, this may be changing. See Curmudgeon's report on WUStL. They mix and match the best ACT sub-scores. Further, many schools will take the ACT scores and not require SAT IIs. Which makes it easier to understand the stats of a particular school. I have been looking for a few years but I still cannot find the average SAT II scores for schools that require them. I can find that information for a few schools individually, i.e. MIT, Cal-Berkeley, but it is not as widely available as the SAT I scores.</p>
<p>There was a fairly recent article in Newsweek or another such magazine where Yale's dean of admissions was pretty frank in saying that Yale -- while professing not to favor the SAT over the ACT and not to require SAT IIs from applicants submitting the ACT -- would still be "puzzled" by applications from traditional SAT states that only have ACT scores. </p>
<p>We hail from a traditional SAT state. After first getting a 1320 on the SAT and then getting a 32 on the ACT, our daughter decided she was done with testing and would submit only her ACT score to colleges. She never took any SAT IIs. We applauded the decision because she had a fine record of academic and extracurricular achievement and agreed that she didn't need the extra aggravation.</p>
<p>The result: she was rejected by the one highly selective northeastern liberal arts college that she applied to, Wesleyan, but was accepted by another essentially equally selective midwestern liberal arts college, Carleton. Her good friend, on the other hand -- with lower grades and less impressive extracurriculars than our daughter's but with very strong SAT I and SAT II scores -- got waitlisted at both schools. Not being a Wesleyan fan myself, I was ok with this outcome but did find it odd that Wesleyan would rank our daughter's friend above her while Carleton did the opposite. Recognizing that admissions decisions at schools at this level can often defy explanation, still, the only reasonable explanation that we could come up with (other than gender) was the SAT.</p>
<p>From my personal experience, I think would agree that there is a bias toward the SATs, or that the colleges that say they take ACT in lieu of the SAT I and II's want to see at least the II's as well. I'm from, traditionally, an "ACT state". I took the SAT I and got a 1430. I took the ACT and got a 35. My SAT II's were 760, 740, 710. Here is my list of colleges:</p>
<p>Northwestern (sent both ACT + SAT): Admitted
Yale (ACT only): Applied EA, deffered and rejected during RD.
Harvard (ACT + SAT): Waitlisted
Brown (ACT only): Waitlisted
Georgetown (ACT + SAT): Waitlisted
William and Mary (ACT + SAT): Admitted (out of state)
Duke (ACT only): rejected</p>
<p>Since I was told the ACT and SAT were on equal footing, I decided to only send my ACT scores into the colleges that would take them instead of the SAT II's. If you consider that Harvard and Yale are probably equally difficult to be admitted to (with Harvard possibly being harder), it is puzzling that I would be waitlisted at Harvard rather than Yale, a school where I showed strong commitment be applying EA. Similarly, Northwestern, Duke, Georgetown, and Brown are probably about the same when it comes to admissions. I wasn't admitted to either college where I submitted my ACT scores alone. I chalk the Georgetown waitlisting up to a gaffe in my interview during which I provided an honest list of the colleges to which I was applying. Looking back, I wish I would have said Georgetown, Wisconsin, and Minnesota only. Also, my interviewer was an incredibly dirty *****. Seriously, she is the head of the hospital in our town, and that fact is generally acknowledged by everyone in our Southeastern Minnesota city of 30,000. As for Duke, I applied at the last minute (same with Georgetown and Harvard, actually) and I missed the deadline for an interview, which could have hurt me.</p>
<p>Anyway, obviously my one personal story out of the thousands of kids who applied to colleges last year can't give an accurate answer to your question, but I sure wish I had submitted my SAT's to every school, mediocre as they were.</p>
<p>Yeah this question is so annoying. I have a 35 ACT with a 35 writing (12 essay) and a 2080 SAT with 10 writing (haven't retaken yet). And it's quite annoying when I ask adcoms at schools like Princeton and once tells me flat out--and I quote to the best of my memory--"While there is no BIAS per se, we do prefer the SAT and since we require SAT-II's, we're essentially requiring SAT-I's too" while yet another (AT THE SAME SCHOOL) tells me--and again I quote to the best of my memory--"Their is no inherent bias and you can submit either freely, as long as you of course submit the required number of SAT-II's, but you really shouldn't worry, we don't really weight the actual test very heavily, think of it like taking one score, say a 36, and another score, say a 1600, or 2400, and those mean the exact same thing, like one score on the ACT and another on the SAT represent the same thing, it's essentially meaningless which test you actually take because they both are equivalent."</p>
<p>So I'm quite flabbergasted at the strangess and wide variety of answers to this question. At Yale and UPenn they strictly stated that their is absolutely no bias and said pretty much the same thing as the second adcom at Princeton said (minus the SAT-II part of course). And yet when I told one of my teachers (I go to school in the North East, if you're wondering) that I was planning on applying EA to Yale and that I may be sending only my ACT scores, she told me "Oh man, I wouldn't do that if I were you, a few years ago one student of mine did that with a 36 and got rejected from EVERY Ivy he applied to!" Now, mind you, I don't really care what happened to one student, for all I know he played the couch and volunteered at the nearest bed (read: no EC's) or whatever, but this is just one display of the widespread IDEA that there is this East Coast bias against the ACT's.</p>
<p>We need an adcom here (or what do you think Alexandre?) to explain this, pleaseeee :-/</p>
<p>I looked at the University of California, Berkeley's Data Entry sheet for applicants, and one of the first, oh I don't know, 15 slots is for standardized test scores. That score is for the SAT I test and if your ACT score was higher, the school automatically converts it to the equivalent SAT I score so the readers do not know whether it was from the SAT I or ACT examination. For example, if one student received a 32 on the ACT and only a 1360 on the SAT I, the only score that will show is the converted ACT score of 1420. I don't know the policy of other colleges, but this is how one top school goes about it. No bias here. =)</p>
<p>my daughter only submitted her (ACT 33 comp) to Wesleyan and was accepted. Our HS is competitive and in the northeast the GC's are encouraging students to take the ACT. It would be highly unlikely that a school that accepts both, really puts sooooooooooooo much emphasis on one or the other. The selective schools get app's with plenty of high scores, one must distinguish themselves in other ways. I do believe that showing a great interest in a school, particularly in the LAC's makes a big difference. Of course grades, classes taken and a good essay's are very important. Schools like Wes want students that will make a difference in their community. It is also about numbers, there are only so many acceptances. Yields are very important to colleges.</p>
<p>lbridge - well said - ACT/SAT scores are not the end all of the application processs - just a small piece of it - it would be nigh impossible to determine exactly who gets admitted to where based only the results of one of these tests - there is sooooo much more to be considered.</p>
<p>I agree with lbridge as well, but not with JeepMOM's add-on that test scores are only a "small piece" of the puzzle. They're at least a medium size piece for most applicants -- and for most suburban and upper class white kids they're actually a pretty large piece.</p>
<p>I'll go on a limb here and share my OPINION, based on what I gather from current website, some reviews of the ACT, and the reports of the few past years on College Confidential:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You CANNOT trust what adcoms SAY in the "traveling" or summer sessions on campus. While not all schools are equal, you can fairly assume that you'll meet the most junior officers. Rachel Toor might not exactly be the poster child for an effective and congenial adcom, but if there was one thing in her book I believed was the report of her disdain for such sessions. Not too long ago, we saw how wonderful adcoms such as the ones who visit the MIT forum on CC MIGHT be confused about recent information. </p></li>
<li><p>Most schools have not defined their fall plans yet and may be reviewing the equivalency of the ACT and SAT. Right now, I would NOT trust the existing tables that convert ACT and SAT scores. My view on this is that, on the one hand, an ACT 36 DOES corresponds to a 1600 score, it is only because of the impact of having one consolidated score, but that, on the other hand, individual 36 ACT scores do not really correspond to an 800 score on the SAT. As more SAT students start to take the ACT, I'd expect the scores to increase dramatically and undermine the current equivalency tables. </p></li>
<li><p>Currently, there appear to be a lot of possible strategies regarding presenting the best set of scores and play the "score choice" card. I do think that these strategies will become old news in the admission circles, resulting in changes in the requirements. I would exercise extreme caution in trying to "game" the system. </p></li>
<li><p>I would exercise the same caution with schools that have recently "softened" their acceptance of the SAT. For instance, I believe that Princeton position is VERY clear: they do not like the ACT and, if a student applies to SINGLE school school tha requires the SAT, they will expect to see SAT scores. For the remaining schools, unless it is spelled out in black on white that presenting the ACT does not carry any penalties, I would be very leery to play that angle.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Inasmuch as one might scout the web for bits of good news about the acceptance of the ACT, I would not expect to see many POSITIVE changes in the future. For instance, I do not believe that the current policy of accepting the ACT as a substitute for SAT Subject Test will survive close scrutiny. I do not see how the ACT could replace the requirements to present a Math or Science SAT Subject Test. The current ACT and the current SAT have become too similar in contents to create differences in admission. </p>
<p>However, it is hard to forget that the SAT schools have shown and are showing not too subtle preferences, and for a long time to boot!</p>
<p>At least Princeton is honest. Can you imagine the law suits if word ever got out that there is a difference when they say there's not! I can't believe that adcom's would lie knowing that this might happen. I know scores are important for things like USnews, but to tell lies would be opening up a can of worms that no college/university would want to deal with. We visited schools during the school year and were told by every adcom that act's were considered just the same as sat's (applicable schools of course). </p>
<p>These varied responses are extremely interesting. I agree that it's almost impossible to pinpoint the reason you were accepted or rejected at a particular school. It could be the test scores, it could be some other aspect of your application, or it could simply be that the needs of the school and the strengths you presented didn't mesh. With so many qualfied people applying for so few spots, that is a real possibility.</p>
<p>Yet there are enough "examples" listed on this page to suggest that submitting ONLY ACT scores to a 'top' school in the northeast could put your application in less than an ideal light. I don't think it's a question of "lying". Such schools are simply used to seeing submissions of SAT scores or even the submission of both the SAT and ACT together, but the ACT sent in by itself still falls outside the norm. The admissions folk may subconsciously wonder why the SAT isn't there and assume the worst about what that score actually is. Obviously, even in this thread, there are examples of people who get into a school like Wesleyan using only the ACT, but whether or not those admission rates are proportional to the numbers of students who submit only the ACT, no one can say. </p>
<p>Xiggi -- I think you are right. We seem to be in such a transition period now. It's not only that the SAT is new, but that the attitudes towards the ACT and how it fits in with both the SAT I and II haven't really been nailed down. The ACT science, for example, is vastly different than the individual SAT tests in bio, chem, physics, etc. </p>
<p>And there are other "discrepencies" besides this. School after school says it will not consider the SAT Writing, yet those same schools do accept the writing section of the ACT and sometimes the accompanying essay. I understand that the problem with SAT I writing is the lack of a pool of standardized scores against which the schools can measure the results. Yet, in another sense, one could make the same argument about the math and reading SAT because there were changes made in these sections as well that differentiate them from the older tests!</p>
<p>Would that everyone would adopt the policy of UCal Berkeley....</p>
<p>Parent2009 - well I guess I would have to consider looking at the group of good schools that don't require ANY test scores at all - can be submitted at ones own choosing - their criteria is based on all the other pieces of the pie alone!</p>
<p>I guess no matter how many books we read and posts we write we'll never really know. I can't imagine the daunting tasks of reading 100's if not 1000's of applications and not be biased in some way. I also can't believe that I'm still obsessed with this board and college books when my d is going to school in a few weeks. I don't have to worry about the process again for awhile (s is a soph). I guess having put so much effort into the process has got me hooked.. maybe I need CC anonymous! I'm even typing with one hand since I broke the other! lol</p>
<p>I don't know about other states, but in Colorado, everyone in the state is required to take the ACT, so consequently, the pool of students taking the ACT is probably weaker than the SAT pool. That may help to explain the lower admission rates that the OP talked about.</p>
<p>The thing I find most interesting with all the discussion about the new SAT with writing is that there is not a similar discussion about the ACT. The ACT only added a Writing section in February of this year but it was optional and it is not part of the composite score. Though like the SAT it is scored on a scale to 12.</p>
<p>Further, though the schools are trying to be un-biased you can see the bias creep in when you read about their testing requirements. Let me cite an example from Harvard. Here are their testing requirements:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Official score reports from the SAT I or ACT, and three SAT II Subject Tests. Harvard College official codes are 3434 for the SAT I and SAT II (the College Board) and 1840 for the ACT. When registering for tests, please use your name as it will appear on your Harvard application. Our testing requirements will change with the introduction of the new SAT I. For the Class of 2010, students may submit either the "old" SAT I or ACT taken before March 2005, or the new SAT or ACT (which must include the writing section). As always, students must also submit three SAT II exams of their choosing. The Admissions Committee will continue to consider all test results in light of students' educational opportunities.
<p>Note how they refer to the "old" SAT but not the "old" ACT. Furher note that they state a specific date, before March 2005. The first administration of the "new" ACT with Writing was in February of 2005. Perhaps an just an oversight but to me it unintentionally shows thier bias for the SAT.</p>
<p>For students applying this coming year I think the best policy is to submit all scores. Hopefully the scores are similar and just reinforce each other. If not, it appears to be a bit of a crap shoot and just raises questions with the Adcoms.</p>
<p>In this link, the COLLEGE BOARD says about the table: "Although the new SAT will have significant changes that will more closely align the test with currentinstructional practices, the new SAT field trial research has conclusively demonstrated that scores on thenew critical reading section will be comparable to scores on the current verbal section, and scores on thenew math section will be comparable to scores on the current math section. Therefore, current concor-dance tables can still be used to compare new SAT and ACT scores."</p>
<ol>
<li> Think about it. If concordance charts exist, then everything is standardized to the SAT. That logically makes it so that it shouldn't matter whether you take SAT or ACT.</li>
</ol>
<p>If anyone has any counterarguments, please feel free to make them and I should be able to respond.</p>
<p>Also, take a look at amazon.com's "look into the book" feature on Chuck Hughes' (former senior Harvard admissions officer) book "What It Really Takes to Get Into the Ivy League & Other Highly Selective Colleges." </p>
<p>He talks about how they are on equal footing, and admissions simply uses a concordance chart to standardize to the SAT. He EVEN says that many educators like the ACT more because it's closer to curriculum.</p>
<p>At worst, ACT is equal, and don't let people who look so deeply to find unconscious bias toward SAT discourage you from getting the highest score possible. 1 million kids take the ACT annually and 1.3 million take the SAT. That's about the same, and is another reason on the large list that ACT is interchangeable with SAT.</p>
<p>I agree that concordance tables enable the minimization of bias because of the conversion that takes place. However, there is a bias against the ACT that does not exist against the SAT. Let me start from your recent post:</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. It was mentioned earlier about the Yale admissions officer's statement. He was specifically referring to people in SAT-majority states who ONLY submit ACT and no SAT 2s. Of course it would look strange, unless you're from the Midwest where SAT 2s aren't as common.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What about students from predominantly ACT states that only submit thier SAT scores to Yale. Though it is left unsaid, and because they receive mostly SAT scores, it may go un-noticed. Or at least less noticed than the other way around. Continuing to use Yale as the example, 98% of students submit SAT scores, 22% submit ACT scores. Obviously many students double submit SAT and ACT scores but almost all submit SAT scores. For Harvard, it is even more lop-sided, 99% submit SATs and 16% submit ACTs. In other words, out of Harvard's 20,000 plus applications, only about 200 do not submit SAT scores. (This information comes from the online version of USNews)</p>
<p>Wonafido, regarding the concordance table, you make the assumption that the individual schools will continue -if they ever did- using the concordance tables without further scrutiny. In reality, when it comes to the concordance table, it is fair to assume that the schools do have a far better set of data to rely upon: their own admission statistics of standardized tests for several years of applications. </p>
<p>Based on multiple anedoctal reports, there seem to be a consensus that competitive students do BETTER on the ACT than on the SAT, based on the concordance table. Considering that the data that served to build the original table closely followed the recentering of the SAT, one might wonder about the correctness of the table and the correct distribution of the percentiles. </p>
<p>There is an unspoken difference in the pool of test takers between the ACT and SAT. Since most uber-selective college have preferred the SAT for a long time, there are a lot more competitive candidates taking the SAT. Just as the SAT, the distribution of the ACT scores is based on maintaining an almost constant historical average. Until a large number of more competitive students turn towards the ACT, the constraint of maintaining the same average will help the competitive students score higher than expected. In itself, this may explain why many students report higher scores on the ACT than on the SAT -according to the infamous table.</p>
<p>In the end, you can expect the schools to make their own adjustments. If they see a number of students presenting 1400 SAT coupled with 34 ACT, they will be bound to make the necessary downwards adjustments. </p>
<p>Lastly, the fact that the number of candidates taking the ACT and the SAT are roughly equal does not change that the ultimate recipient of the scores are different in the higher ranges. When it comes to the very selective schools, the comparisons are departing from the average students and involve less than 10% of the candidates. And it is in this 10% pool that the differences become relevant.</p>