Are adcoms telling the truth about ACT scores?

Parents Forum
61

<p>From BU website:</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

It seems that SAT-IIs are not required.</p>

<p>From NYU website:

[quote]
Standardized tests are an important part of the admissions process. All applicants to NYU must provide official test scores from either the SAT Reasoning Test or the ACT examination. Students completing high school in 2006 must provide scores from the new version of the SAT (which includes the Writing section), or from the ACT and the ACT Writing Test. While you must provide scores for the new SAT or the ACT with the ACT Writing Test, you may also provide scores from the SAT I or the ACT taken prior to March, 2005. We will use your highest combined SAT or SAT I scores or your highest ACT scores in evaluating your application. International students who are in an area where the ACT Writing Test is not offered must take the new SAT.</p>

<p>Students who took both the SAT I and the SAT II Writing Test prior to March, 2005, may request that these scores be used instead of SAT Reasoning Test scores. Requests must be in writing, and should accompany the application for admission.</p>

<p>We encourage all applicants to submit the results of two SAT Subject Tests. For students entering NYU as freshmen in September, 2007 (current juniors), our policy concerning SAT Subject Tests is changing. Beginning with the freshman class entering in 2007, all students, except for those noted below, will be required to submit two SAT Subject Tests. This requirement does not apply to those students applying for programs in our Tisch School of the Arts or for the studio art or for any of the music programs in our Steinhardt School of Education. (Note that students applying to programs in Steinhardt that do not require an audition or portfolio will be required to submit two SAT II scores.) The purpose of providing SAT II scores is to assist us in determining how well prepared you are for college-level work, which is, of course, similar to the reason we ask visual and performing arts students to provide a portfolio or perform an audition.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It seems that for this coming year (high school class of '06) SAT-IIs will not be required but beginning the following year, two will be required.</p>

<p>From US website:</p>

<p>
[quote]
What standardized tests does USC require for admission?</p>

<p>USC requires scores from the SAT or the ACT (with optional writing component) from:</p>

<pre><code>* All freshman applicants (including international students) who are attending high school in the U.S. (and strongly recommended for students attending high school in Canada)

  • Freshman applicants who attend overseas American or International schools

  • Transfer students who have accumulated fewer than 30 USC-transferable semester units

  • All freshman and transfer applicants (including international students) for programs in architecture and journalism

  • All international freshman applicants for programs in cinema-television

[/quote]

</code></pre>

<p>SAT-IIs do not seem to be required.</p>

62

<p>xiggi, I never intended to mean that she was submitting ACT WITHOUT SAT II's. Several of her schools require ACT with 2 or 3 SAT II's. She will not take the SAT I. I thought this was clear. Indeed the quote does say that she will not be taking the SAT I (nothing about II's). She already took them.</p>

63

<p>thanks, these are changes for bu, nyu and usc and must have been posted on their sites in the last couple of weeks. This really does mark a sea change. For many the ACT is a better choice --for instance, SAT II science tests require a real knowledge of the subject and true studying, but the ACT science is more like a pure reasoning test, and so may require much less studying, but still will indicate you can do college science. That you do not need to spend as much time studying to a test is a big positive --what do you get from studying to master an extra test except more WASTE of time.</p>

64

<p>Quiltguru, my intention was not to put you on the spot. I just wanted to clarify that presenting the ACT by itself was not sufficient for most of the schools you listed. Since there have been many references that the ACT could replace the SAT + SAT Subject Tests, it was important to underscore that it was not the case everywhere. As you know, I even tried to organize a thread to list all the variables. :) </p>

<p>It may have been my mistake to focus too much on the word "only" in the first sentence of your post: "My D scored a 35 on the ACT and will only be submitting the ACT." </p>

<p>If I misrepresented your words, please accept my pixelized apologies.</p>

65

<p>I may catch some flak for suggesting this, but does anyone else wonder if part of the reason some of these highly-selective colleges supposedly happily accept the ACT only option is to not only to a) be more attractive to students from traditionally ACT states in order to boost their geographical diversity (do you know how far you could have to drive to take Subject Tests in, say, Montana?), AND b) to provide an easier method of entry for recruited athletes? </p>

<p>Maybe this is a silly idea, but I'm struggling for reasons why these schools could even TRY to claim that ACT alone is just as informative for them as SAT + 2 (not to mention 3!) Subject Tests. I've worked in admissions at a mid-highly selective school where I was also on the D1 basketball team, so I've seen the bartering and off-the-books deals (so admissions ratings are protected) that get made between adcoms and athletic depts. It is beyond me how any admissions rep at a highly-selective could look you in the eye and say that a test that you can do in one day that has only 4 parts (ACT) is as good as tests that have 5 elements total (or 6 if three STs are required) and take two days. Not to mention that ACT science doesn't tell you a whole lot about a student's abilities that you couldn't have gleaned from the Reading combined with the Math (assuming the student knew not to read the science experiments before reading the questions). </p>

<p>I may really get beat down for this additional suggestion, but one could also claim (and adcoms may believe) that with the SAT they get a score from a test that has its roots (and still has remnants) in logic/aptitude AND with ST's they get scores that provide a measure of achievement, whereas ACT has always (proudly) claimed to be primarily an achievement test only. </p>

<p>This isn't the most politically correct statement I've ever posted on CC, but, hey, it wasn't so long ago that the SAT stood for Scholastic Aptitude Test and the Subject Tests/SAT II's were called the Achievement Tests. I'm just sayin'....</p>

66

<p>I think the reason is explained somewhat in momofdzt's post -- the science part of the ACT is a reasonably good test of scientific reasoning ability and a good indication of the student's capabilities. Historically, most colleges that required SAT II's wanted one of them to be writing -- obviously the ACT with writing fills that gap. Since choice of subject for SAT II's is generally optional, they don't really provide that good of an assessment in any case -- students are likely to choose their best subject. So basically the SAT II's don't really fill an essential function. </p>

<p>I honestly would like to see colleges accept AP scores in lieu of SAT II's - it is a real waste of time when a student needs to take two tests in the same subject. Certainly a score of 4 or 5 on any AP is as much of an indication of mastery of the subject as a high SAT II score. I just think that there is too much time spent on redundant testing.</p>

67

<p>No matter how the ACT positions itself, the critical reading and science sections taken together probably equate to a large degree with verbal IQ. SAT IIs (except for math) probably do not reflect ability as much as pure studying. I remember the good ole' days when students walked into the SAT cold. In those days, the ones who scored in the 1400s without ever having seen the test before were truly outstanding. These days, the ability to prep and study tells you less about a student's native ability than that student's preparation and possibly the parent's ability to pay for courses.</p>

<p>There are so MANY ways to assess students. Those who apply to top schools have top scores across the board. Someone who can get close to 36 on ACT science and critical reading is going to be able to handle the courseload at any college. Their acceptance will have to depend on other factors --as it should-- and the time they spent studying for MORE useless tests should probably not be high on the list.</p>

<p>My son has a LOT to do in senior year --heavy courseload, plays to be in, essays to write. These will add much more to what he knows in life than studying for, say, a lit test. This is a boy who reads voluminously --it is NOT better that he study for a lit test than that he read more literature in terms of REAL value. The college does not need to see one more SAT II score from him to know who he is.</p>

68

<p>Amen, calmom. And, IMHO a waste of money on redundant testing. Like at many independent schools, we must pay for each of the AP exams our kids take. Now mind you, my D has taken the ACT once (no SAT I), has taken 2 SAT IIs (one twice) and so far 5 AP exams and by the end of next year one more SAT II and 6 more APs. Total cost to us for taking all these tests (including standby penalty for 2 of the SAT IIs since she forgot to register, but not including rush fees), sending the scores to 6 colleges? $1284! Imagine the cost for those kids who take these tests multiple times!</p>

69

<p>I completely agree that Subject Tests and AP's are largely redundant, but the reason colleges can't require AP's instead of ST's is that a lot of students go to high schools where few or no AP's are offered. </p>

<p>I suppose colleges could accept AP's instead of ST's for those students who had AP's, but that gets pretty messy from an admissions perspective, not to mention that plenty of people would then cry foul and complain that the kids who took ST's only weren't demonstrating as much proficiency. And so on and so on.</p>

<p>calmom, I'm not saying the ACT Science is totally worthless, but it just doesn't provide as much information as 2 or THREE Subject Tests. Does anyone who has actually taken the ACT Science really think it is indicative of how you are likely to do in college level science classes? You do well in college science if you have aptitude for the subject matter and you go to class and labs and study hard. You do well on the ACT science if you can read quickly and answer questions about graphs and charts. It requires no prior knowledge of anything scientific (or mathematic), so how can it possibly demonstrate the same kinds of skills as the STs.</p>

<p>I just think it is fool's gold to hope that you're painting as compelling a picture of yourself to a school like Yale if you submit ACT alone.</p>

<p>I certainly won't argue with momofdzt's larger point that testing is out of control.</p>

70

<p>but on the other hand, how much does a score on a SAT-II indicate about your ability to do college science? Honestly not much. I agree that the AP test is a better indicator. Beyond all this, what if, as in my son's case, he is not going to be taking science and math beyond minimal requirements, and will be an English student. Certainly you don't really think that the SAT II Lit is an indicator of how well you will do in an English class in college? i don't. if you don't have better accomplishments than these tests a school like Yale won't give you a spin anyway. My older son was a math student but his accomplishments in math went way WAY beyond good (in fact perfect) scores on the Sats, Sat II and AP in his subject. At a certain point the tests are redundant --and so many people get perfect scores it is just ridiculous to keep racking them up like notches on a belt.</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
"I just think it is fool's gold to hope that you're painting as compelling a picture of yourself to a school like Yale if you submit ACT alone....."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I tend to agree. Conscious or not, there is still a subtle bias at many of the northeastern schools. But what about a school like the University of Chicago? It is located in a state that requires all students to take the ACT , and, according to their own website, 40% of the students who got into Chicago submitted ACT and 85% submitted SAT. That suggests that 15% of the successful applicants only submitted ACT scores. Would submitting only ACTs be a "safe" thing to do?</p>

<p>Also, what about Wash U....another midwestern school? The school makes a point of saying that they will combine ACT scores, the same way most schools will combine the SAT. Any school which has such a distinctive policy on the ACT would presumably be a school that's willing to take such scores seriously. Or is that not the case?</p>

72

<p>At our son's school, the GC encouarges ALL students to take both the ACT & SAT I & II. Nearly all do take both tests & I think many submit results of all tests to the colleges of their choice. For my son, he got 2230 on the SAT I & all his SAT IIs were 740-770s. His ACT was 34 composite. He'll probably submit all his testing. The percentiles for him are pretty comparable between the tests, so I don't think it will harm him to let them see all the test results, to show they aren't flukes.
HImom</p>

73

<p>Maybe as long as we're at it, the kids should submit their Apgar scores. My son had a 10. ;)</p>

74

<p>Cami215,</p>

<p>Re: UoChicago, according to the data USNews has on Chicago 85% of the students submitted SAT scores and 40% submitted ACT scores. For Northwestern the numbers are 84% and 52% respectively.</p>

<p>What I find interesting is that the percentages are not reversed for these mid-western schools. Also, it appears that there are a lot of students taking both tests.</p>

75

<p>CALMOM - roflllllllllll - hahahahahaha - GREAT IDEA!!!!! - Would definitely show progression - or not!!!</p>

76

<p>There's something I still do not understand. Adcoms will (supposedly) pick through all those SATs to fish out the top 2 (or 5 if SAT IIs are counted). </p>

<p>Now why won't they do the same with the ACT and take the best scores of multiple sittings?</p>

77

<p>WUSTL has actually started doing that, which may start a chain reaction among schools. And we all know that once Harvard does it, every school will.</p>

78

<p>I actually e-mailed my regional counsellor at Yale expressing my curiosity at the strangeness of the public view of the ACT in regards to the schools' "actual" view (and specifically mentioned the article in which Dean Shaw expressed his "puzzlement" at a student from an SAT-majority state sending only ACT scores) and the response was again a solid (and maybe even stern) "their is absolutely no bias" (I think I may have annoyed her a little bit, actually)...</p>

79

<p>RC0813,</p>

<p>Thanks for annoying her for all of us. Most of us perceive a bias though they Adcoms claim that one does not exist. In thier defense they are probably trying to eliminate or lessen any bias that may exist.</p>

80

<p>Cami215: As I believe I noted earlier in this thread, my S only took the ACT and was admitted to UChicago and his other "reach" school as well.</p>