<p>Ok, so I always thought that for MIT, and every college, only one of the SAT/ACT is required. If a person takes both, he or she does not have an advantage over a person that takes one, and colleges will only look at the better (after putting them to the same scale) of the two scores (or the only score if you only took the SAT or ACT).</p>
<p>However, my doctor, who I went to for a physical in order to play sports this year, asked me a few questions about high school and asked me if I had taken the SAT and ACT, and I told him that I only took the SAT. He said that I should also take the ACT because in his words, "most top private universities perfer an applicant that took both the SAT and the ACT". I did not think this was true, but he went to an Ivy League college so he does have experience in these "top private universities". I never even thought about taking the ACT because I thought that my SAT scores were good enough and that I did not want to spend a Saturday or any preparation time studying when I could be doing other great things, such as hanging out with my friends or doing something else like research.</p>
<p>So basically, I want to clarify something:
Is it an advantage to take both the SAT and the ACT? (I didn't think so, but my doctor said otherwise). When I mean "advantage", I just mean strictly in taking both, not an advantage that you get 2 chances to see which is a better score.
Are there any colleges that specifically require both an SAT and an ACT score?</p>
<p>I’m not sure if there are any schools that require both… but I’m willing to bet that there are either none, or very few.</p>
<p>I honestly don’t think there’s a major advantage to taking both. If you get equally good scores in both, it might show the admissions officer that you were “putting in effort”, but in all seriousness, it probably won’t make a difference. I think less than 30% of people take the ACT anyway. The only reason I ended up taking both is because my school district pays for the ACT, and I wanted to take the SAT either way.</p>
<p>I had registered for the ACT, but ended up never taking it. I got back my SAT scores two weeks before the ACT was scheduled and thought that 2350 was good enough for all of the schools I applied to. I was admitted to MIT, two Ivies and most of my other top choices without an ACT score. So based on that, I would think that if you are perfectly happy with your SAT score, don’t stress about taking the ACT. Instead, use that time you would have spent studying or taking the test to pursue one of your passions or interests (academic or otherwise). Overall, that will be more useful to you both as a person and in terms of college admissions in the long run.</p>
<p>The only point of taking both tests is to see which one you score higher on.</p>
<p>However, having both tests puts you at no advantage over a kid who took just one (assuming your scores are comparable). If you have a 31 ACT and a 2000 SAT but your friend only has a 2000 SAT, test-wise you two are equal as applicants.</p>
<p>I’m willing to bet your doctor didn’t go to college recently; things are really different now. I don’t know of any schools that prefer if you have both; the only advantage is if you end up doing better on the ACT than you did on the SAT, like everyone else said.</p>
<p>I agree with what everyone else in saying. Also, in the specific case of MIT, admissions will consider only the highest of your SAT and/or ACT score(s). Taking multiple tests or multiple sittings won’t hurt you or help you (unless your scores improve, of course).</p>
<p>I never even thought about taking the ACT. It was just that my doctor told me that a couple of days ago, and I wanted to make sure. He went to Cornell, and I don’t actually think he took both (like 10-20 years ago, I don’t think the ACT was that popular). I think he was misinformed and thinks that high school students now need to take both.</p>
<p>well, for my school the ACT is a graduation requirement, so the school pays. Kind of annoying when you do better on the SAT than the ACT, I suppose.</p>