<p>I agree, there appears to be a bit of a bias toward the SAT, though it is clearly a rebuttable bias. However, there is one bit of information that I find interesting that runs counter to your post. Of those schools that report both their SAT and ACT ranges, their ACT ranges seem a bit lower based upon the concordance table. Let me cite a few examples,</p>
<p>Harvard: SAT 1400-1590, ACT 31-34
Yale: SAT 1380-1580, ACT 30-34
Stanford: SAT 1340-1560, ACT 28-34
UoChicago: SAT 1300-1510, ACT 28-32</p>
<p>Using the concordance tables shows that the average 25-75 ACT score is lower than the reported SAT averages. To illustrate I'll use the concordance table to convert the above examples:</p>
<p>Harvard: SAT 1400-1590, Concordance ACT->SAT 1380-1520
Yale: SAT 1380-1580, Concordance ACT->SAT 1340-1520
Stanford: SAT 1340-1560, Concordance ACT->SAT 1260-1520
UoChicago: SAT 1300-1510, Concordance ACT->SAT 1260-1420</p>
<p>In other words, using the ACT scores skew the data by about 55 points on average. Not sure why this is but intesting information non the less.</p>
<p>On a somewhat related note, an interesting article about the ACT & correlation to first year college grades:</p>
<p>Excerpts:
[quote]
ACT sets its college-readiness benchmarks - including the reading comprehension benchmark, which is new this year - by correlating earlier students' ACT scores with grades they actually received as college freshmen. Based on that data, the benchmarks indicate the skill level at which a student has a 70 percent likelihood of earning a C or better, and a 50 percent chance of earning a B or better.</p>
<p>Among those who took the 2005 test, only 51 percent achieved the benchmark in reading, 26 percent in science, and 41 percent in math; the figure for English was 68 percent. Results from the new optional ACT writing test, which was not widely taken this year, were not included in the report.</p>
<p>About 40 percent of the nation's 2005 high school graduates took the ACT, and the average overall score, 20.9 of a possible 36, was unchanged from the year before. But Dr. Ferguson found it heartening that scores were holding even, given that the pool of test takers had become so much larger and more diverse, in part because both Illinois and Colorado now use the ACT to test all students, even those who do not see themselves as college-bound.</p>
<p>Minority students now make up 27 percent of all ACT test takers, up from 24 percent in the class of 2001. The number of Hispanic test takers has grown 40 percent in that period, and the number of African-American test takers 23 percent. Caucasians taking the test have increased by only 2 percent.
<p>I just don't get how an adcom will react if they see my scores if I submit both my 35 on the ACT and 2080 on the SAT. Would NOT sending the SAT at all (at applicable schools, that is) be worse?</p>
<p>My S was admitted to UChicago (and others) where he will be attending with only the ACT. He never took the SAT. Unless you are applying to Princeton, an ACT of 35 is what I would submit.</p>
<p>Listen, there is no bias against the ACT at virtually all top colleges.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Listen to admissions officers from the best. Hernandez and Hughes, senior admissions officers at Dartmouth and Harvard, both agree that the tests are viewed equally and show the SET tables that Ivies use, Not based on individual data like xiggi assumes. (The table is identical to the tables commonly online, except that 33 is 1480 instead of 1470).</p></li>
<li><p>The statistical test is legitimate and not conducted by morons. Your few anecdotal stories of Mary scoring 1100 while getting a 36 are few and far between, as shown by the many statistical surveys that end up with virtually the same results. UT has done a large study. So has college board. Same with the Ivy League. All of these charts correspond to the Northwestern admissions statistics. Your few outrageous anectodes cannot stand against legitimate statistical studies. Sections are similar enough to ensure that accurate concordance tables can be made, and the educational experts have made the statement that the concordance chart is applicable to the new SAT.</p></li>
<li><p>Would expert college counselors from East Coast Prep Schools really urge kids to try the ACT if they knew that the ACT wasn't accepted like the SAT?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>What more evidence do you need?</p>
<p>RCO813- 35 is practically perfect, so send that only.</p>
<p>By the way, I called Princeton yesterday, and an admissions officer said the scores are interchangeable after I specifically asked about what the website says. In response to the question, she said almost exactly: "(2 second Pause) Well, they are interchangeable."</p>
<p>Wonafido, the discussion is not about the validity of taking the ACT; it is about how it could be perceived at selective schools. </p>
<p>FWIW, I am supporting the notion that students should take the ACT because there is currently an advantage to do so. If you want to remain oblivious to the fact that the current situation might change rapidly ... that is up to you. </p>
<p>For what it is worth, you may want to check the publication dates of the books you cite. The admission policies of post March 2005 may not be exactly the same as in the late 90's or even in the early 2000. </p>
<p>Lastly, when it comes to admission, each application is an individual case with a different context.</p>
<p>Yeah administrators at my NYC private are encouraging certain students to take the ACT because "our students fare even better on it". Their words, not mine. I would say that the ACT is gaining ground now on the East Coast and hopefully will put pressure on the SAT.</p>
<p>As to Eagle79's observation above about colleges appearing to have lower ACT ranges than would be indicated by the concordance tables, the reason for that is: (a) those concordance tables you generally find on line all have their genesis with a College Board percentile comparison done in 1996 based on 1994-95 scores; (b) the table the College Board itself has on-line today is the one from that study; (c) a number of colleges, including the ones you list, create their own equivalency tables based on data from more recent tests.</p>
<p>Also, someone mentioned above that Caltech does not take the ACT. It started doing so with the applicants to its 2005 freshman class.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I dunno what you mean. How is their policy magically changing in March 2005 just because of the new SAT, when educators say that the concordance charts can be used with the new SAT?</p>
<p>Btw, a UT Austin study conducted in early 2000s had similar results as the collegeboard chart. So, it is an accurate, not obsolete, chart.</p>
<p>I have another theory for the difference in the ACT/SAT scores. All the schools listed take the best sitting for each students SAT sub-scores and the best composite score without making an allowance for the best ACT sub-scores. That would skew the data down for the ACT (not to show a bias, alternatively, it would skew the data up for the SAT).</p>
<p>wonafido,</p>
<p>I believe that the concordance tables are quite accurate. That does not mean that there is not a bit of a bias toward one of the tests. I am not saying that the bias is large only that it may exist. Also note that my theory stated above would also provide a statistical bias against an ACT tester because they would not get the benefit of their best sitting sub-scores like the SAT takers receive at almost all schools, the UC system is the notable exception.</p>
<p>At the end of the day it appears not to matter in my son's situation. His SAT I and ACT scores are equivalent according to the concordance table. For him his best sitting SAT is the same as his best mix and match score. He took the first administration of the ACT with writing in Feb, the SAT I in March and May and the SAT IIs in June. Along with the AP test he took in May that is a lot of testing. </p>
<p>The only issue he may have is that his 3 SAT II scores are not in 3 different subjects, he took Math Level 1, Math Level 2 and Chemistry. For those schools that require 3 SAT IIs in different subject, i.e. Princeton, it seems like such a waste to go through another test when he has taken enough tests to show his competence.</p>
<p>RC, if your scores on the ACT are significantly better than the SAT, then I think it is better to submit ACT only - it makes no sense to dilute the value of a 35 ACT composite with a submission that says, "by the way, this kid isn't so smart after all if you look at the SATs". The only time the ACT "bias" issue would come into play is if the scores were reasonably close. My daughter will be submitting ACTs only for that reason.</p>
<p>I'd like to point out another ACT advantage, that is also part of our decision, at many colleges. With the advent of ACT+writing, most (but not all) schools have dropped the SAT II requirement for students who are taking the ACT. That by definition requires multiple sittings for tests, whereas an ACT taker can do it all in one sitting. It would be far more efficient for a student to retake the ACT in an effort to boost scores, than to retake SAT Is + have to fit in SAT IIs. So I think that you may see an increase in ACT use as students realize that advantage. This means that colleges will start to see more ACT-only submissions, which will probably also further reduce bias. </p>
<p>For what its worth, we are in an SAT state - where SAT II's are required by the state U., so we can't get away from it -- but my daughter's high school is an ACT testing center, which kind of favors taking the ACT among those students. I mean, it's much nicer for her to drive to familiar territory on a Saturday morning than to add the stress of dealing with parking & finding her way around an unfamiliar school.</p>
<p>My D scored a 35 on the ACT and will only be submitting the ACT. She will not be taking the SAT I. She asked several adcoms on our tours last week about this (Harvard, Yale, Wesleyan, Williams, Penn) and all agreed that this was perfectly acceptable.</p>
<p>In addition, the reason the ACT with writing is not required for all ACT takers is that last year, the writing portion was not offered in every state. One school (I believe it was Wesleyan) requested ACT with writing or old ACT + old SAT II in writing or new SAT I with writing or old SAT I + old SAT II in writing. The commented that if the student had taken the ACT without writing and had never taken the SAT II in writing, they would need to take either the new SAT I or the ACT with writing. I.e., they want a writing score.</p>
<p>My D will also only be submitting her ACT score. All the schools we visited this summer had no problem with that. She's retaking it this fall but even that's a win/win situation since she won't have to report the score if it's lower.</p>
<p>"My D scored a 35 on the ACT and will only be submitting the ACT. She will not be taking the SAT I. She asked several adcoms on our tours last week about this (Harvard, Yale, Wesleyan, Williams, Penn) and all agreed that this was perfectly acceptable."</p>
<p>Unless they changed it again, the ACT only does not satisfy Harvard's requirement. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Which standardized tests does Harvard require?
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>
<p>To satisfy our application requirements, applicants must take three SAT IIs, and students may choose any three subjects, with the exception of the English Language Proficiency Test (ELPT). Applicants may wish to convey the breadth of their academic interests by taking tests in different subjects. </p>
<p>My son has a 33 ACT, but three of the schools he is applying to also seem to want two SAT II's --NYU, USC, and Boston U. Do you think these requirements are really set in stone? I hate to see him wasting his time studying for SAT-II's just for this.</p>
<p>I think if the school says that the SAT II is "required" - then it is. But personally, given the current landscape, with a good ACT score my impulse would be to strike the schools with the SAT II requirements off the list. I know that a couple of schools my daughter considered were ruled out simply because of one requirement or another that she did not have. I mean - if your daughter's heart is set on NYU, for example -- then she should take the test -- but if she is still narrowing down her list, or if NYU is one among several reaches... why add the additional stress? </p>
<p>I have to add the note that my daughter does have to take at least one more SAT II to meet UC admission requirements -- but with her grades she can be reasonably sure of admission to UCSC (safety) in any case - so I think she will just take the lit exam in October and not stress over the score. The UCs will get the SAT scores - private colleges will get ACT.</p>
<p>"Freshman applicants will be required to submit the results of two SAT Subject Tests in different subject areas of their choosing. Students may submit the results of the ACT (with the writing section) in lieu of the SAT and SAT Subject Tests. " </p>