<p>In response to people that said it was BS, I do have stats.</p>
<p>I have two friends who were LITERALLY virtually identical applicants. They were:</p>
<p>White Males, with AP Bio and AP USH their soph year, AP Calc, AP Psych, and AP Physics B their senior year, and all honors classes otherwise. </p>
<p>Their ECs were the same: One sport each (different sport) and captain of that sport, Member of Band all 4 years, stong interest in Peer Ministry. </p>
<p>Difference? SAT vs. ACT.</p>
<p>One has a 2280, the other a 35. </p>
<p>2280 got into most schools, including Cornell and UPenn, ACT was rejected from all.</p>
<p>I read both essays (well, i peer edited them), and they were very similiar, if not the same in terms of quality. </p>
<p>So, in rereading my post, I MEANT to say that:
36= 2300+
35 = 2200-2300</p>
<p>The problem with this is that it creates ranges, and the lack of specific numbers makes it tough to discern where the person would fall in that SAT category.</p>
<p>Okay, I’ve made my view on this very clear in the past. So I’m going to keep it simple:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Obviously, colleges know that standardized tests aren’t everything, only one component. So a 2400 is not guaranteed in anywhere.</p></li>
<li><p>Of course, standardized tests are still important, because they provide a way for colleges to compare applicants on an even scale.</p></li>
<li><p>The SAT and the ACT are a COMPLETELY different tests. Different timings, number of questions, content, everything.</p></li>
<li><p>Why would prestigious schools, with a LOT of experience, weight these tests EXACTLY EQUALLY?? </p></li>
<li><p>From experience and what others have told me, the SAT is viewed as superior when compared to the ACT. It is seen as the challenging, intellectual test; the ACT is seen as the test for the hardworking, fairly average student. This may not be fair, but that’s the system.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>A lot of people who defend the ACT are low-scoring SAT takers, by the way. just something to keep in mind.</p>
<p>cooljazz, what you’re missing is that being hard-working is much more important than being intelligient. Intelligience is like skin color, who the hell cares really. Your born with it–high intellect is completely based on luck, no more, no less. </p>
<p>I can see some bias towards the SAT because it has been around for longer and the such, but saying that the ACT is easier because you can study a lot more for it doesn’t make sense. Look at the percentiles; That’s how you should be comparing the two tests. There shouldn’t be “Oh, okay, even though a 36 is percentally equal to a 2370-2400, it must be worth less.”. A 32 is a 99% percent on the ACT, but is supposedly only equivalent to a 2130-2150 range, despite that being in the low 98% for the SAT. Another example, a 30 being a 96% and a 2000 being 93% and yet having them equal. I can see that as a slight bias, because statistically, a 32 should be around 2160-2200 and a 30 should be a 2050-2060. I guess the conversion factor depends on the college; the highest conversion i’ve seen are from the university of california, but I bet there’s other colleges that undermine the ACT’s value. Slight bias, but undermining the ACT’s value is ignorant. </p>
<p>Only people who are born with high IQs and did little or no work have a bias against the ACT. My message to them: Get over yourself-- i’m glad you won the lottery, but don’t undermine everyone below you because you got lucky. Note, that I believe in equality and an equal playing field for everyone, so yeah, i’m pretty ****ed off when some arrogant genius tries to talk trash on the ACT.</p>
<p>Oh, I definitely think that hardwork is just as important as intelligence. But at the end of the day, colleges are meant to be places of intellectual studies. So it’s not fair, but they want the “lucky” geniuses who have that special spark. Hardwork is just expected. So I’m not going to argue the fact that we are born with intelligence. The fact is, the challenging, intellectual test is valued over the test for the hardworking, average kids. </p>
<p>The statistics may show that the ACT should be valued more, my point is that it isn’t. Colleges see the SAT as superior, so to answer the topic question, the tests aren’t weighed the same.</p>
<p>I think the colleges “undermine the ACT’s value” just because they know the format. You always hear people say, “It was so easy, just had to manage time correctly.” or “The science section has always been a joke” or “I can’t believe i got a 35 on the ACT! My SAT was only a 1980.” On the other hand, on the SAT board it’s “OMG the CR is so hard to improve, I never have time to finish those hard passages!” You can see, it’s all over these boards. So I guess colleges are just picking up on that fact.</p>
<p>I don’t think you should write off proponents of the SAT as people who didn’t do any work and should get over themselves. Sorry, but the tests are just on different levels in the eyes of universities. And if you were referring to me at the end, I wish i were an “arrogant genius,” but I’m not :D</p>
<p>ACT and SAT are looked at the same, don’t let people try to scare you. If a school accepts the ACT and you want to send it, go ahead.</p>
<p>Many people who score poorly on the ACT try to bash it, just like how people who score poorly on the SAT try to bash it. In my opinion, it’s an advantage to have two types of tests available, because you may not do well on one but might do better on the other.</p>
<p>I go to a top 3 public school in Illinois, and the ACT test is mandated by the state. Most people don’t even bother with the SAT I, yet our school still sends many students to Ivies and other very prestigious schools with the ACT alone. Don’t let people influence you with their regional bias. Take whatever test you perform better on.</p>
I wasn’t referring to anyone in particular, but the people know who they are :D.</p>
<p>I know, I always hear about the ACT being “way easier” then the SAT. The percentiles for the scores, however, don’t really match up with the claims-- and population differences are hardly a factor now or something I heard back from 06, “people who take the ACT are not as competitive as people taking the SAT”. I don’t think the SAT or the ACT is harder, but more of a preference. </p>
<p>And I think that a lot of people on these forums are fairly hard-working, explaining the larger number of 36s to 2400s, etc. The amount of people with 2390-2400s is roughly equal to the number of people with 36s on the ACT, statistically speaking (looking from 2370-2400, there’s a much larger amount of people with that than the ACT…). For every person who has a higher ACT than SAT, there’s a person with a higher SAT than ACT.</p>
<p>I’m just saying that I’m applying to a lot of schools on the East Coast (Fordham, NYU, BC, BU, Villanova, etc), where the SAT is the dominant test, and being from NY, most people take the SAT, and I’m just a bit worried, especially since I already took the SAT twice and didn’t do so well, although once was in tenth grade.</p>
<p>In terms of Ivy League admissions you’re trying to pinpoint the single reason why one applicant was chosen over another? That’s going to be futile, especially since you can’t speak from the perspective of an admissions officer.</p>
<p>The whole ACT vs. SAT debate is pointless. When colleges say they value the two equally, they mean it. They recognize that some people do better on one test than another, and colleges recognize that.</p>
<p>dreamsofivy – You have no way to prove that. . . the admissions process is holistic at those schools. You don’t know how their interviews went, or any other factors that may have played into the process. You aren’t using STATS, you’re using a personal anecdote, which makes your argument inherently flawed.</p>
<p>And also. . .</p>
<p>“Lastly, yes, the number testers taking the ACT has DEFINATELY increased greatly to about the same number of SAT testers.”</p>
<p>You should learn how to spell before trying to make a coherent argument, rtgrove. Just sayin’. . .</p>
<p>Ok, I am fine with serious debate. However, this is not an academic setting where “spelling” is crucial. I dont give a dam whether you have a problem with my spelling or not and I dont see any reason for you to attack my writing…it simply wasnt constructive in any way.</p>
<p>I’m not completely sure about GWU, but I’m pretty sure a 29 would be acceptable for schools like Fordham, Villanova and BU when you pair them with the right EC’s.<br>
What do you think about a 33 for University of Virginia?</p>