<p>Check out this thread:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=245650&page=4%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=245650&page=4</a></p>
<p>Scroll down for the links to Naviance. Choose a school and view a test score scattergram for the colleges you're interested in. I suspect shooting for the 75th percentile is a good idea.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with only taking the ACT. Many elite colleges, ie Yale and Brown, only require the ACT and no SAT 2s. In my opinion, I think this speaks to the fact that they feel the ACT alone better tests a students' preparedness for college than solely SAT scores. If the SAT were preferred by schools, then they would not accept the ACT, its as simple as that. Honestly, I feel your son is making the smart decision because once he takes the SAT, if he doesnt do well, the schools to which he submits his SAT 2s will see his SAT 1 score no matter what. However, with the ACT, they will only see the 1 score he chooses to send. Even if he takes it 50 times, schools will never know. Allow him to take the ACT only, and if he does well, dont force him into another tedious 6 hours of standardized testing. If he does not perform to his goal, then maybe the SAT is a better choice for him.</p>
<p>That's sorta my method of thinking too. I mean if Yale, Brown, Chicago ect. wanted 4 SAT IIs written in blood and taken nude, they would say so and students would STILL be willing to do that. Basically, top schools could impose whatever ridiculous requirements they want and students would meet them. So, by not requiring SAT IIs w/ an ACT it means what it means, they don't require SAT IIs w/ an ACT. Its not a way to attract more Midwest applicants (any Kansas kid who had the drive to apply to Yale would find a way to take SAT IIs if they had too) and I doubt its a way for them to increase apps and lower admissions rates (at least I hope schools aren't THAT unscrupulous).</p>
<p>shoot for a 36 always.
A very competitive score is 34 though.</p>