<p>Ok so I know there are countless threads on ACT vs SAT, but I have a different question that wasn't quite answered from perusing the site.</p>
<p>Assuming submitted scores are high, is there any edge gained in admission to elite colleges in taking both tests over taking only the SAT (which is the norm at many schools)? For instance, a 2400 vs a 2400+36, any edge?</p>
<p>I make nothing of those stats except that Stanford students don’t like the ACT. No I’m just kidding. Those stats prove no point about whether one is better. The only point this stat proves is that SAT is the dominating/most common standardized college admissions exam. IMO, it really doesn’t matter, they know what a good score is on each, and what relative ACT range a student would get, who gets a good score on the SAT (and vice versa). Look at Yale, 9% of students admitted only took the ACT.</p>
<p>Relooking at the stats, yes the percentage of students at Stanford listed as submitting an ACT score is odd. As well, all students are required to send in either SAT or ACT. 92+5 doesn’t equal 100.</p>
<p>I think these stats prove one thing: the ACT is not as popular as the SAT. Other than that, I don’t think you should read that much into them. I, personally, took both and did well on both so I sent both scores.</p>
<p>The number of SAT vs. ACT takers is not all that different - 1.5M SAT in 2008 vs. 1.4M ACT. However, I think the ACT is still the predominant test in the midwest which could explain the differences in the distribution at those schools (more coastal bias in students). </p>
<p>OP, you did pick up the correct % for ACT. It may be an anomalous year. I found the 2000 CDS and it showed 20% provided ACT scores.</p>
<p>I think Stanford ACT number is so low because a much larger percentage of its students come from California, where the SAT is dominant.</p>
<p>And I don’t think there is much of a difference between 2400 and 2400 plus 36. The main point of the SAT and the ACT is to make sure that you have the ability to do the work, and that’s already seen with a 2400; a 36 won’t add anything to this. </p>
<p>The only way a 2400 and a 36 would help is if you’re using it as sort of award or accomplishment, but honestly, there should be a lot more meaningful and interesting things in your application than high standardized test scores. And I doubt using these scores in this way would affect your decision at all anyways.</p>
<p>I’m from the Midwest and I was told to definitely take the SAT if I was looking at Coastal schools. They’re different tests. I personally think the SAT is much harder to BS.</p>
<p>A lot is made out of those fake ADHD diagnoses to get untimed tests. On the SAT, obviously, this will help you–the time limits can be a problem. But a lot of people (applying to the top schools, at least) don’t really have that much trouble with the time limits, and mostly struggle with the content.</p>
<p>But in the ACT, as anyone who has taken in knows, having an untimed test is ridiculously helpful for the Reading and Science portions. The reading portion forces you to speed read, and the Science portion is literally a race against the clock. Almost all of the answers to the Science portion are in the materials, the test just measures your ability to find them quickly–and with the time limit taken out, it should be ridiculously easy to score in the 34-36 range in Science.</p>
<p>That’s the biggest flaw in the ACT vs. the SAT for me, and because these schools tend to get more applicants with the SAT, I’d probably focus more on that one.</p>
<p>Some students perform better on one over the other, since the SAT is an aptitude test, meant for evaluating problem solving, while the ACT is an achievement test intended to evaluate how well you know what you’ve been taught. </p>
<p>I imagine a 2400+36 is more impressive than a 2400, but single sitting 2400’s are rare enough. It can’t hurt to send in another excellent standardized test if you do take and do well on both, but only you can decide if it’s worth the time, money, effort, etc.</p>
<p>I don’t know much about admissions, but I always thought there would be no advantage to take two if you already have a good score on one of them.</p>
<p>My idea was that it would show more consistency if you do well on both tests. And if that’s true and that does help somewhat, it seems that one would have a greater shot sending both since there are few that do so at these schools.</p>
<p>It hardly matters. I’m going to Stanford and I submitted my ACT so it doesn’t really make a difference. I found the ACT to be much easier and I enjoyed the format more. Many of my classmates found that the SAT was much better. I would take both and just go from there. You may find that one test works much better for you than the other. For me, it was a difference of about 100 points.</p>