Having trouble getting clarity on this. Amherst, Hamilton, Middlebury and other top LACS Superscore the ACT. Does Pomona?
Thanks!
From the website:
They will use the highest composite, but they say that they will consider higher subscores from other test dates. So although they do not officially superscore, they do look at higher section scores from other exam administrations.
Pomona’s testing philosophy isn’t the clearest. The following is quoted exactly from their website:
“Pomona College suggests that applicants submit all SAT and ACT scores from all test dates. The Admissions Committee will consider your highest section scores across all test dates. Final admissions decisions will be made using only your highest individual test scores.”
“Pomona believes a full testing history, like a full transcript, provides context for a fair evaluation for each candidate. Pomona has a strong interest in reviewing all our candidates with straightforward and common standards, which includes the presentation of all academic work from all schools attended and includes test scores from all examinations. If different students use different rules, establishing a fair and common set of considerations is seriously challenged. We wish to create as level a playing field as possible for our candidates and believe that students who cannot afford repeated testing or test preparation courses should not be considered with a different battery of information.”
“We believe a full testing history allows students to present themselves in the most positive light in the admissions process. Sending all test scores allows admissions officers to “mix-and-match” scores (also known as “superscoring”). Providing a complete set of test scores allows our admissions officers to better understand a candidate’s strengths, and to evaluate a student in the most thorough and nuanced manner possible.”
Thanks to both of you – azwu331 and golfcashoahu. That’s very helpful. Sounds like they consider all scores but do not recalculate the composite score.
I wonder about Pomona’s thoughts on that since many of their peer institutions do truly superscore (recalculate the composite score). Seems like it would be a disadvantage to Pomona when it reports its average ACT scores. Any thoughts on that?
Just to muddy things a bit more, it would appear that Pomona’s testing policy is evolving. The paragraph quoted by @azwu331 comes from the 2015-16 catalog (the most recent available), which also states that 2 SAT Subject Tests are required and that students must certify that they are reporting all results from all dates. But, as @golfcashoahu notes, the website now says that SAT Subject Tests are only optional, as are the writing sections of both the ACT and SAT, and that the college now only “suggests” that all test results be reported.
And FWIW, Stanford’s ACT policy seems to be very similar to the one in Pomona’s catalog:
“For the ACT, we will focus on the highest Composite and the highest Combined English/Writing scores from all test sittings. We will also consider individual subscores.”
“I wonder about Pomona’s thoughts on that since many of their peer institutions do truly superscore (recalculate the composite score). Seems like it would be a disadvantage to Pomona when it reports its average ACT scores. Any thoughts on that?”
My first thought on that is that I have no reason to think that the different ways a school considers your multiple test scores in evaluating your application vis a vis other applicants necessarily has any correlation with how those schools reports the average scores for their entering class.
Yes, maybe there’s a standard that requires all schools – even those that superscore the ACT – to submit only the highest composite scores reported by the testing organization? But, as I understand it, the widespread move towards superscoring the SAT was driven by that same dynamic – that it allowed these schools to report higher average test scores for their incoming classes.
Can anyone shed light on this?
Here’s my take:
Pomona does superscore the ACT, but it also takes into account if you’ve taken it multiple times/if you cannot afford to take it multiple times. Essentially, Pomona gets exactly what it wants: the admissions officers can report the highest stats possible, and URMs/first-generation/low-income are not disadvantaged.
As I said above, I think Pomona’s testing philosophy is not clear.
@SwimDad99, IPEDS requests that colleges report whichever score (either single-sitting or superscore) they used to make their final admission determinations. CDS doesn’t seem to provide any guidance on the question.
The reality is that what we’re nitpicking about probably doesn’t have much significance beyond appearances to admissions officers who are aware that 1) ACT calculates that its standard error of measurement is about +/- 1 for the composite, which means it’s statistically possible for a student who scores a 31 and another who scores a 33 to have true scores that are exactly the same, and 2) for over 90% of those who take the ACT multiple times, there is only about a 1 point difference between their best single-sitting composite and their superscore (meaning there’s no statistical difference between the two). I’m guessing that’s one of the reasons the Pomona website also says, “…only with exceptional rarity have test results been the final decision point in our considerations.”
Good information, golfcashoahu and otisp. To the former’s point, I agree completely that, if they’re reporting superscores to USNews, Forbes, etc, then it’s generally a win-win for everyone.
And, otisp, I’m sure your numbers are right, and I take your point about statistical validity, etc. I would just add our own perspective – that my kid’s ACT composite scores varied by only one point over three exams. But his individual test scores (English, Math, Science, Reading) varied sharply – in two cases by six points – a 28-34 on one and a 29-35 on another. So that equated to a superscore two pints higher than his best composite. That difference may not be statistically significant, but I imagine that it makes a pretty big difference in terms of how an applicant will be evaluated for admission (i.e. a 31 ACT versus a score of 33). Again, thanks for your thoughts. This has been helpful.
“…only with exceptional rarity have test results been the final decision point in our considerations.”
Hmm. Not sure I’m buying that line from Pomona. Applicants who submit test scores well below the middle 50% (ACT scores between 31-34 at Pomona) are – in the vast majority of cases – rapidly dispensed with in a weeding process necessary at highly selective schools. In those presumably hundreds of cases, the test results will have been the final decision point. Right?
@SwimDad99 Interesting logic in post 10. However, I bet applicants with ACT’s <31 tend to––but not always––have other areas for concern, such as a weak transcript or flat essays. No school wants to come out and say that standardized testing plays a very prominent role in admissions, as that would generate negative publicity. Example: http://www.pomona.edu/admissions/first-year-admissions-guidelines. Notice how Pomona says “record of academic aptitude and achievement” rather than a more direct statement like “Standardized test scores and academic performance in core classes.”
@otisp Your analysis is interesting, but there comes a time when the score you receive is what you’re being evaluated on. The difference between a 31 and a 33, I believe, is quite significant: at many of the top schools, a 31 is the 25% percentile, whereas 33 is usually the mid-50% or higher. Statistically speaking, you’re right: both scores could be the same and reflect margin of error. However, I don’t feel remotely comfortable with that assumption.
Thanks for the note, golfcashoahu. That’s my sense of it exactly. Highly competitive schools don’t want to fess up to the extent to which they use test scores for weeding purposes, and I understand that. Still, I have no doubt that standardized test scores serve that purpose.
And I agree with your second point, too. A 33 ACT will put a talented kid in the mix at any elite college whereas a 31, still a very good score, is on the lowish end for all but those applicants with significant hooks (sports, URMs, first generation, etc.).