<p>Why do so many people take the SAT IIs when all but a small handful of schools will take the ACT with writing instead?</p>
<p>If one takes the SAT II on the premise that providing the scores will help an application, how good do the scores have to be in order to benefit (ie, increase the chances of acceptance)?</p>
<p>Did your student retake an SAT II if his/her score wasn't good enough? If so, how low was the "not good enough" score and what was the subject?</p>
<p>Hi fendrock,
In our neck of the woods (mid-Atlantic/Northeast) it seems that the SAT rather than the ACT has always been the test of choice, and the ACT doesn’t even cross our radar. As for the type of score which can help an application, I have always told my kids that any SAT 2 score which starts with the number “7” would be beneficial or wouldn’t hurt.</p>
<p>I know this will seem strange to some, but I do have a child who re-took the SAT 2 in Chem. He received a 720 the first time around. He knew he could do better with more preparation-he had a lousy, first year chem teacher and he felt that it showed on that SAT exam. He got a higher score the second time around. Since he plans on a college major in the biological sciences, he felt it was important to show a higher score.</p>
<p>Homeschoolers take them because colleges often require more SAT Subject Tests of homeschoolers than of students who have other forms of high school education.</p>
<p>Midwest here. I grew up in the east and I can confirm what momof3sons says. However, even back in 1976 (the dark ages of testing) my sister ended up taking the ACT and scoring a perfect 36. She was a brilliant student who just didn’t test well and back then the SAT was much more fish is to water as Cow is to field. I do find it worth pointing out that the changes to the SAT are more in line with the ACT vs the other way around. I will also agree with the OP that many schools take the ACT with writing in lieu of subject tests of the SAT. And… there are a few schools that, if you only take the SAT, you have to submit SAT II’s as well. And then there are those Ivy’s and others who regardless want a few SAT II’s just to confirm what you’re already telling them. </p>
<p>My son never did well on SAT II’s. He also never really specifically studied for them either, so that could explain a lot. He did much much better on the ACT than SAT I. And we held out higher hope for those applications that didn’t include his SAT II’s and he was accepted to every single one based only on ACT scores (even some that may have “suggested” he send SAT II’s). </p>
<p>Mom is also correct that anything that starts with a 7 is beneficial. But when you score really high on the ACT, a 700 might look a little thin next to a 36.</p>
<p>Here in CA, until the HS class of 2012, students are required to take two subjects tests as an entry requirement to the UC system.</p>
<p>Georgetown requires and looks at them closely.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s a matter of score as much as it is percentile. On several 700 can be 65%. I think the rule of thumb is whatever the college is looking for per section on the SATI percentile wise would be a good score on the II’s for that college. The top schools see lots and lots of 800’s.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t worry too much about the percentiles. The students who take the SAT Subject Tests are a highly select group to begin with. Being in the 65th percentile of that group isn’t anything to be ashamed of.</p>
<p>Students who are applying to highly selective colleges in the East worry about SAT Subject Tests because many of these colleges require them and make use of them in admissions decisions. </p>
<p>And I think that students and parents talk about them a lot because there’s a great deal of strategy involved in deciding which tests to take and even in planning high school course schedules in a way that enhances the student’s chances of doing well on these tests. </p>
<p>For example, a standard high school science course sequence for a student with an interest in biology might be biology in 9th grade, chemistry in 10th grade, physics in 11th grade, and AP Biology in 12th grade. But a strong case can be made for switching the last two courses – taking AP Biology in 11th grade and physics in 12th. Why? Because it puts the student in a position of being very well prepared to take the SAT Subject Test in biology at the end of 11th grade. Two years of biology are better than one. Taking AP biology in 12th grade doesn’t offer the same advantage because the student would already have taken the SAT Subject Test.</p>
<p>Another example: A student might be interested in taking two AP social studies courses – AP Macroeconomics/Microeconomics and AP U.S. History – one in 11th grade and one in 12th. In terms of SAT Subject Tests, it makes much more sense to take the history course in 11th grade and the econ course in 12th rather than the other way around. Why? Because there is an SAT Subject Test in U.S. History but none in Economics. And the AP U.S. History course provides excellent preparation for the SAT U.S. History Subject Test.</p>
<p>As for how good the scores have to be, I think it depends on the student and the college. There are some top students whose philosophy is “750 or bust” – that is, they try to select subject tests where they can get at least a 750, and they will study again and retake the test if they get below 750. But this may be absurdly demanding for many other students.</p>
<p>fyi, this year an SAT II of 800 in math was 90% percentile, but a 730 in Biology was 93%, so the 730>800</p>
<p>You mean Math II, right? So do most of colleges adjust the scores by subjects?
I saw not few schools express that SAT II scores should be submitted for placement purpose. Does this word “placement” include “admission”?
My S got 800 in Math II and 770 in US History. He plans to take Physics in fall. He considers the scores enough because he wants to major Math in college. Is this right?</p>
<p>Not sure about 770 US History. A good college would want a more well-rounded applicant.</p>
<p>^ I don’t get it… 770 in US History doesn’t show well-roundedness?</p>
<p>hmom:</p>
<p>disagree about the %. A 750 is a 750, the only differences being language (for native speakers) and Math.</p>
<p>I would not worry about the percentiles, for the reason explained by Marian and also because I believe colleges simply look at the number, not the percentile. When they say they are going to take your “highest” 2 or 3 subject test scores, they are not going to look at your corresponding percentiles. They will simply take the highest 3-digit number scores.</p>
<p>In the dark ages when I worked in admissions we had a table for percentages. While a select group takes the tests (though skewed by systems like UC where tens of thousands must take them), they are pretty easy tests on the whole for anyone with any subject mastery. Like AP tests where strong schools tend to produce mostly 4’s and 5’s, strong students/high schools produce lots of 800’s. I don’t think a 750 on the typical SATII compares to a 750 in an SATI area, and the percentile usually confirms that.</p>
<p>I thought that the percentile only describes the takers level “among the test takers” so that the test takers level matters, doesn’t it?
In case of Math, Math I 800 represents probably 95% or something but it does not prove Math I is more difficult than Math II.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely right. More than 1.5 million 2008 HS graduates took the SAT I at least once. Of those, only about 275,000, or less than 1 in 5, took SAT IIs. In general, those who took SAT IIs would tend to be skewed towards the top of the SAT I score distribution, because mostly they’re top students planning to apply to the elite colleges that require SAT IIs. (The mean SAT I CR + M score for SAT II-takers is approximately 200 points higher than that for all SAT I-takers). So scoring in the 90th percentile on an SAT II is generally going to be a more impressive accomplishment than scoring in the 90th percentile on the SAT I; it puts you among the elite of the elite.</p>
<p>But percentile distributions vary widely among the various SAT II tests, which are testing very different pools of applicants. The most popular SAT II is Math Level 2, with about 150,000 takers among 2008 grads. Out of those 150,000, 23% scored 750 or higher. In other words, if you scored a 750 on Math Level 2, you’d be at the 77th percentile of those taking that test. In contrast, only 5% of the 91,000 who took Math Level I scored 750 or higher; so if you score 750 on Math Level 2, you’re at the 95th percentile. Does that mean Math Level 1 is harder than Math Level 2, or that a high score on Math Level 2 is less impressive to college adcoms than a high score on Math Level 1? Of course not. Math Level 2 requires you to know more math. More high-powered math jocks take Math Level 2, and a relatively high percentage of them do very well. By and large the people taking Math Level 1 have had less math, and not as many of them are really good at it, so a lower percentage of them end up with top scores. (Among 2008 grads, the mean SAT I CR + M score for those taking Math Level 2 was about 60 points higher than for those taking Math Level 1). Comparing percentiles across these tests is silly, because they’re testing very different pools of people. </p>
<p>On the other hand, a high score on the SAT II LIT test seems to be a rare distinction. It’s one of the most popular SAT IIs (119,000 takers among 2008 grads, making it the third most popular after Math Level 2 and U.S. History). But only 6% of those who took the test scored in the 750-800 range; another 11% scored in the 700-740 range. I’d say a high score on SAT II Lit merits special commendation, but whether adcoms see it that way, I don’t know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course these scores are high enough. They would be high enough even if the 770 was in math and the 800 was in history. </p>
<p>He may not even need the physics score if he’s applying to schools that only require two SAT Subject Tests, but there’s no harm in taking it because colleges typically look only at the two best scores.</p>
<p>The way some people on this board talk, it would seem as though my daughter, who got two 790s and a 760 on the SAT Subject Tests, should have taken them over to try for higher scores. How absurd!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and no. Some schools like Georgetown require three subject tests. But even those that only require two, more high scores is better than less high scores. Thus, four 750’s is better than two, all other things being equal. </p>
<p>Rumor in California is that despite Stanford’s official change in policy, its still the more tests the better.</p>
<p>bclintonk, Thank you for the convincing explanation with the concrete numbers. I think I understand well.
Marian, Thank you for the suggestion. My son may apply to colleges requiring 3 subject tests, so he would take Physics as the third. In my impression and his grades at school (US History B-, Latin AP A-) suggests that he might do better in Latin so I guess it an option for him to take Latin subject test. But I’m wondering if it might be overwhelming for him.
bluebayou, thank you for the suggestion. Yes, if taking the fourth is not too stressful for him, I will encourage him take Latin.</p>