Help for my friend's D-Which test to submit?

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Hi. A close friend of mine just called and asked me to post her question on this forum on behalf of her daughter. She's a top student at her school. I know the SAT forum may be the more appropriate place to put this, but I always feel that the best advice is right here!</p>

<p>Which standardized test should she submit: SAT of 2050 (660 CR, 670 M and 720 Writing, with an 11 I believe on the essay), SAT IIs of 620 in bio and 640 in Math I</p>

<p>OR</p>

<p>ACT of 30 subsections 34 English, 29 Math, 29 Science, 28 Reading, and with a 33 Writing with a 10 on the essay.</p>

<p>The student is a senior looking at top 50 LACs and universities, both east coast and midwestern and is thinking of applying early to a clear first choice. All her schools will take just the ACT or SAT and SAT IIs. All else being equal, any suggestions on which is more to her advantage with these numbers? They are concerned about the SAT II scores , but then again the ACT subtest distribution is a little inconsistent too. Thoughts for my good friend? Thanks in advance! Roshke</p>

2

<p>I would submit both.</p>

3

<p>I don't know how common this is but the UCs will accept both and pay attention to the highest score.</p>

4

<p>Is she also considering any of the SAT-optional LACs? She might want to identify a couple of those to consider since she is in that cohort of kids whose standardized test scores may underrepresent her academic ability, achievements and potential. <a href="http://www.fairtest.org%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.fairtest.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

5

<p>I'd go with the ACT -- and I don't know why people are suggesting the test-optional schools. A 30 composite on the ACT is great -- and the scores are much better overall than my Barnard daughter's composite (barely a 28). That ACT is in-range for any school.</p>

6

<p>Thanks for the replies. jmmom, I agree that this girl's standardized test scores do underestimate her ability. I hope that her academic record(probably top 5% with all APs and honors classes), recs, activities and essays will be able to profile her as she deserves!</p>

<p>From what I know, my friend's D certainly has a good balance of reach, match and safeties on her list, including a safety that is also SAT optional (where she would get in with or without scores). Her main concern right now is for her top choice place which, unfortunately, is not test score optional. Acceptance rate there is in the high thirties overall, much higher for ED. I guess the question becomes which is more of a disadvantage - to share the SAT II scores or to not to share the SAT I scores?</p>

<p>My first instinct was to say just send the ACT score in order to avoid having the SAT II scores seen at all, but the SAT I score is really very solid for most of her schools, including the top choice. This is not exactly an easy one to call, IMO! </p>

<p>edit: Sorry calmom, I just cross posted with you. Thanks for your advice!</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
I don't know why people are suggesting the test-optional schools. A 30 composite on the ACT is great

[/quote]
Well, because according to my conversion chart (maybe it's wrong?) a 30 on the ACT converts to a 1320-1350 SAT old. While I, too, think that's great and it matches her own SAT of 1330, we live in an admissions world where that is not oh-so-high for the very most selective schools.</p>

<p>Since roshke hasn't told us which schools she's targeting, it's hard to say. At many of the top 50, those scores will be outstanding. At others, they will be quite low down in the 25-75% range.</p>

<p>I don't like it much, but it is what it is.</p>

8

<p>The percentile rank for an ACT of 30 is about 98%; and the admitted student range at all schools is much broader for ACT scores than SATs. For example, Yale & Harvard have ranges of 30-34, Columbia & Brown ranges of 27-32. (*This is based on stats I assembled last year, I haven't checked to see the current reported ranges). </p>

<p>Bottom line: ACT 30 is good enough to get in just about anywhere she might apply. If she isn't happy with that, she could retake the ACT and she has the option to send only the score set she likes the best. </p>

<p>Test-optional is fine, but her scores would be very good for any of the test-optional schools in any case, so it kind of negates the purpose of going test-optional. She could simply achieve the same result and get equivalent schools by targeting those for whom a 30 ACT was above average. </p>

<p>Roske: just a note. My daughters SATs were 1930, with the highest score being 730 writing, also with an 11 on the SAT. She did well on the ACT English/writing composite score, as she had a 33 on the English part, but for some reason could not do better than a 8 on the essay ACT essay after 2 sittings. It was hard to hold back the SAT knowing that her writing score was better there -- but the other scores and the SAT II's were not good, so strategically it just made more sense to stick with the ACT. I think that your friend's daughter would probably be "safe" to submit both, but if I were in her shoes I would advise ACT only. </p>

<p>Half of all the students that the top schools admit are on the lower half of their SAT/ACT score ranges, so I don't quite get why people think that's going to lead to rejection. If the student is "in-range" then the decision is not going to be based on score; it is going to be based on the other stuff in her application package.</p>

<p>People on these boards are waaaay too obsessed over test scores. I admit that I discouraged my daughter from applying to any school where her 28 ACT put her below the 25th% level ... but there weren't any schools on her list that were excluded by that measure like that. A 30 ACT is a very strong, though not remarkable, score for all but a very small handful of highly selective schools.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
Half of all the students that the top schools admit are on the lower half of their SAT/ACT score ranges, so I don't quite get why people think that's going to lead to rejection. If the student is "in-range" then the decision is not going to be based on score; it is going to be based on the other stuff in her application package.

[/quote]

But that "half" may have a disproportionate representation of kids with hooks; i.e. recruited athletes, legacies etc. Thus the 25-75% range may be misleading for the applicant without a hook. Not to say anyone should make their decision based mainly on scores, but they should have a realistic notion of who they will be compared with.</p>

10

<p>I would submit both.
They are similar but schools will look at best subscores.</p>

11

<p>There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the lower half of the score range is filled with "hooked" applicants. Many recruited athletes, URMs, and legacies have very high, above median test scores - there is no evidence that among admitted students, they are bringing the score range down. The most selective colleges use a very holistic view of the applicant -- they consider all factors. The most important factors they look for are demonstrated academic performance -- GPA and class rank, and the strength of the high school curriculum. The stronger those factors, the less important the test scores are. </p>

<p>This distorted focus on test scores is why people constantly misjudge their likelihood of admission and are disappointed when they don't get into their dream colleges and complain about it all being a "crap shoot". They focus on one of the least significant elements of their application package in term of assessing chances, so of course they get it wrong. </p>

<p>My daughter applied to 6 colleges where she submitted test scores that were at or near the bottom of the reported score range for the college. She was accepted at 4 of these colleges, waitlisted at one, and rejected at one. So basically we have a 67% admit rate at colleges where she is bottom of score range. My d is not a URM or athlete or legacy - no "hooks". She did have a strong GPA and was in the top 3% of her class. </p>

<p>My daughter also applied to three colleges where her scores put her in the middle of the range. Of those she was accepted at two colleges, waitlisted at the other -- so we also have a 67% admit rate for mid-range scores. </p>

<p>Finally, she applied to 3 colleges where her scores were at the top of the range, and was admitted to all 3 -- so in that case we have a 100% admit rate.</p>

<p>Obviously that is only one case, but it's hard for me to see 4 acceptances as some sort of lucky fluke. One... yes. Four... no. I just think the GPA and class rank were more important. I would feel very sorry to see other kids discouraged from applying to the same schools that accepted my daughter out of the misguided belief that only kids with above-average test scores can get in. It is patently obvious to me that the reason the colleges report the mid-range 50 percent range is because there is a bell curve, and that <em>range</em> is where the vast majority of their students fall. So in "range" means in play -- assuming other factors are competitive for admission.... and anyone who discourages a student from applying because scores fall at the bottom end of the range really is doing that student a tremendous disservice. </p>

<p>Roske said that the friend's daughter is a "top student at her school" -- so I assume that, like my own daughter, she has a strong GPA and class rank. And she also has better test scores. So it seems to me that the kid in question can pretty much apply wherever she feels like, with the ACT she has. I do not know of any college where a 30 ACT is not in range. </p>

<p>Obviously, like my daughter, Roshke's friend's daughter should have some reaches, some matches, and some safeties. That shouldn't be hard for her to find.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the lower half of the score range is filled with "hooked" applicants.

[/quote]

Pretty definitive statement. Can you cite the source of this data?

[quote]
Many recruited athletes, URMs, and legacies have very high, above median test scores - there is no evidence that among admitted students, they are bringing the score range down.

[/quote]

I don't doubt that many recruited athletes, URMs and legacies have high scores; I'd also bet that the median of that cohort is lower than the median of the cohort without hooks.

[quote]
Obviously that is only one case

[/quote]

And consequently it is not particularly useful except as anecdote. How can you possibly extrapolate from your n of 1 to the entire population of 10-20,000 that apply to selective schools? If the scores within the 25-75% were irrelevant, then the distribution of acceptances within this range would be even. Yet invariably the acceptance rate for the 700-800 range is higher than the 600-700 range, etc. etc. This does not necessarily imply that the students with high scores are accepted because they have high scores. But, assuming this trend is consistent from year to year, it does mean that the student with lower scores has a lower statistical probability of being accepted. (The obvious flaw here is that we don't know what the distribution of acceptances is within the 700-800 cohort. If it is even then my thesis is incorrect.)</p>

<p>But I do agree that the student should apply anywhere she wants. In fact, my personal take is that, given the lower acceptance rate, and the subjectiveness of the review process, the student with scores on the cusp should apply to more reaches, not fewer. You can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket.</p>

13

<p>I didn't say that the scores are irrelevant - I said that they are less significant than academic factors (GPA, class rank). If the colleges were as focused on scores as people here seem to think, then they wouldn't turn away students with higher test scores in favor of students with lower test scores.</p>

14

<p>Good point.</p>

15

<p>I would submit both and perhaps take another SAT II or take one of them over. Perhaps Literature????</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
I didn't say that the scores are irrelevant - I said that they are less significant than academic factors (GPA, class rank). If the colleges were as focused on scores as people here seem to think, then they wouldn't turn away students with higher test scores in favor of students with lower test scores.

[/quote]
Well, I don't know that anyone is saying that the scores should be, or even are, paramount. I know that I am not. But an applicant wants to present the strongest possible picture of herself and this sometimes involves choices of what to submit. </p>

<p>What I <em>am</em> saying is that, if you find yourself at the top of an applicant pool in all respects other than test scores, then you might want to leave out those scores. Most places you can't. Test-optional schools you can.</p>

<p>Curmudgeon has jokingly referred to the Archetype on cc of the Parent-with-one-verified/verifiable-data-point-but-still-happy-to-make-sweeping-generalizations. I think we all can be in danger of that. </p>

<p>calmom's D had an extremely successful application season where test scores were not her strong suit. I think, calmom, that tends to convince you that test scores are not much of a limiting factor. But I think that you would acknowledge that your D had some very distinctive experiences which, while they may or may not be a hook, enriched her applications greatly and perhaps blurred any focus an adrep might give to her scores. Not everyone has these. </p>

<p>My kid also had successful apps with relatively lackluster scores relative to other parts of his record (including stellar college GPA's since he was a transfer). Still, my "one verifiable data point" is that he was accepted to highly selective schools where he did not need to send SATII scores; rejected where he did. This makes me think it wise to consider your options wrt score submissions. I don't think that means I believe scores are the end-all-and-be-all. I don't. I'm fully aware that Stanford rejects 50% of the applicants with perfect scores. Meaning other elements of the app can trump scores. My point, in suggesting test-optional schools and in suggesting strategizing which scores to send where you have to, is: if you don't have to overcome an element of your application, you are better off.</p>

17

<p>The vast, vast majority of schools in this country are not that selective. The problem is that the small number of some of the most selective schools are the ones where so many kids with steller profiles apply, making the process a rat race at that level. When you go down a notch, it's a whole different story.
I didn't see where your D applied to schools and what their selectivity is. My son applied to a number of schools with SATs within their top 25% but with a 2.5 average. All rigorous courses at a rigorous school. He got into most of those schools, BUT this was unusual from what his college couselors told us, and the schools' records of admissions outcomes supports this. He had some highly desireable ECs that fell short of being "hooks". He was applying for specific programs, and that is where he had some issues, as he did not get accepted to a number of those, though he cleared the admissions to the school as an arts and sciences student. I can pick out a few other kids who got into schools that looked like long shots because they had low grades and high level SATs , but never would I call it a precedent. THe transcript is the single most important piece of most student's application. So with outstanding grades , it is not surprising your D got into some schools even though her test scores were not within the midrange. . I would be interested in the accept rate of those schools, however.</p>

18

<p>That's a good reason to avoid sending the weakest scores, which happen to be the SAT/SAT II's. The problem I have with the advice to look at test-optional schools is that this is a student with strong scores. Not amazing scores - but strong scores. To focus only on test-optional is to eliminate a large number of schools where she would have an excellent chance of admission.... so it makes no sense. An ACT 30 is mid-range or average for Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, Cornell -- not 25th percentile, but 50th percentile or above, for the reported ACT scores. </p>

<p>One reason my daughter had distinictive experiences is that she didn't spend her time studying for and retaking standardized tests. So I just get frustrated when I see everyone advising a retake, when that wasn't even the question posed. </p>

<p>This CC world is a strange place. It isn't that its a bad thing to try to improve weak scores -- the problem is that people here can't seem recognize a strong score when they see it. When my son scored 1440 on his first sitting of the old SAT, that became his last sitting. As far as he was concerned it was good enough to get him wherever he was aiming, so he didn't waste time trying to make it into a better score. He knew that he wasn't going to get into an Ivy and that it nothing to do with his scores -- and he understood that his planned summer foreign exchange would be much more significant to the LACs he was targeting than 100 extra points on the SAT score would ever be.</p>

19

<p>cp, my daughter was accepted at Barnard, Chicago, NYU, Berkeley - Barnard is around 24% admitted, Berkeley 27%, NYU 28%, Chicago 36%. (She submitted her SAT scores rather than ACTs to Berkeley, because UCs require the SAT IIs - the individual test scores ranged from 530-730). Roshke said friend's daughter is aiming for a school with an acceptance rate in the high 30s, even better for ED - so basically, somewhat less selective than the colleges I was referencing for my daughter. So in that range you might find Colby or Wellesley -- with ACT range of 27-31 -so a 30 is safely in the upper half. </p>

<p>(All my references to score ranges are for 2005 stats - I'm using info I compiled last year -- but if there is a change in a year I doubt it is going to be more than a +1 point increase).</p>

<p>You and I are on the same page -- the transcript is the most important part. Obviously your son needed a boost of very strong scores because of his weaker GPA -- test scores are always useful if they reveal something new about a student -- in the case of your son, hopefully they signalled "great potential". But I think for college admissions, in general it is better to be in the position of high GPA/middling test scores as opposed to high test scores/middling grades -- at least in a situation where, as my daughter, the high school is established enough so that the ad coms take the GPA & class rank seriously. (My d.'s school is not a top prep, but it usually sends one kid to an Ivy and several to top LAC's each year).</p>

20

<p>While some of the schools further down on friend's D's list happen to be test optional, her top choices, not HYP level but still first tier, are not. As someone pointed out to me, in this case the SAT and ACT composite scores are roughly comparable so the question really becomes just how much emphasis is there on ACT subtest scores as compared to the SAT II subject tests? For schools that would normally require SAT IIs, I imagine they will be looking in either case. On the other hand, most guidebooks I've seen break down the SAT into 25-75% subtest scores, but they don't do that for the ACTs. A hidden advantage for the ACT?</p>