<p>
[quote]
Statistics seem to indicate that they do have a preference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The statistics indicate no such thing on the part of the admission committees. The statistics may or may not indicate something on the part of the students who decide which test scores to submit (which is the subject of the original post in this thread). I'll give you an example of what I mean. In my high school days, I was told (and I think this was correct information way back then) that some colleges on the coasts required the SAT. I lived then, and live now, in Minnesota, which has long been ACT-predominant territory. Where I live, a high school student can choose to take either test, and there are convenient test centers offering one test or the other in various places. (There are a LOT more ACT test centers here, still to this day.) I chose to take only the SAT. But then I chose only to apply to my state's state university, to which most students submit ACT scores only. Admissions statistics for that year for that university would have shown, as current statistics still show </p>
<p>that more applicants to that university submit ACT scores than SAT scores (it's clear from the statistics that some submit both), but that doesn't prove anything about an admissions committee preference. My alma mater has not had a stated preference for a long time. Even when I was in high school, one could look up a formula for calculating admission eligibility based only on SAT scores and high school rank percentile. </p>
<p>So the evidence you point to is incompetent to show what the preference of an admission committee is. It may indeed show what students in some places believe about what admission committees prefer, but some of those students may believe incorrectly.</p>
<p>Even if those statistics are legit, they mean nothing. Very few applying to top schools will have ACT ONLY because many will do well enough on the PSAT that they become merit semifinalists, and have to take SAT for merit finalist standing. It is the only reason my son took SAT I.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Very few applying to top schools will have ACT ONLY because many will do well enough on the PSAT that they become merit semifinalists, and have to take SAT for merit finalist standing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, I'm glad you mentioned that. The brand name preference of the National Merit Scholarship Program should not be imputed to college admission committees. (You can bet that College Board will do its best, as against ACT, to encourage National Merit to keep that preference.)</p>
<p>Our son, 2010 class of Emory, had a very good ACT and mediorce SAT's, including SAT II's. He had so many other things going for him besides the scores. Top tier schools look at the whole person, as does any college/university. It is the fit and they knew this student could do the work and contribute in other ways to the university.</p>
<p>"Having said that - were I counseling students, I would encourage them to consider the ACT over the SAT. Not because of a college preference, but because one sitting of the ACT + Writing covers testing requirements at many institutions that require sitting for the SAT and the SAT2s. Why spend two Saturdays taking tests when you can just spend one?"</p>
<p>DanAdmiss@Tufts, that was my daughter's reasoning exactly for her steadfast insistance that she would take the ACT and only the ACT. No amount of cajoling, hedging-your-bets talk, etc. would cause her to budge. She has declared that the SAT, SAT Subject Tests, the SAT preps, the multiple taking of the SATs, etc. are all a huge conspiracy dreamed up by the SAT folks to create crazy hysteria at the expense of over-achieving students and/or their over-achieving parents for the primary purpose of making money for the SAT organization. (No offense folks, but I really have to admit I see her point).</p>
<p>Ultimately, she took the ACT once, scored well enough, and has applied to pretty much only top-tiered schools on both coasts and in the middle of the country on the strength of that single score, her academic grades and curriculum, her focused single extracurricular activity, her lovely inquisitive personality, and her non-traditional self-discovery path. </p>
<p>I guess you can check back with me next spring to see whether her soapbox stand against the SAT smorgasbord left her without options.</p>
<p>You daughter sounds like a smart cookie, and you hit on a interesting point. </p>
<p>Aside from logistical reasons in favor of the ACT, the culture that surrounds the ACT feels more in line with what is healthy for a 17 year old. While I don't think there is anything inherent in the SAT that makes it higher pressure than the ACT, the students that gravitate towards the ACT seem to be a little more relaxed about the whole process. This is anecdotal, however, and I fully acknowledge that this could be more related to the reinforcement of stereotypes than differences in reality. Nevertheless, it's a distinction worth noting.</p>
<p>Often colleges will accept either ACT or SAT with no distinction made. Check the college websites, which often specify this information. I have owned and run a test prep company since 1989, and some people always do better on one test than on the other, but it's impossible to tell which students will be which, without trying both. If you did better on the ACT than the SAT, why not just send the ACT scores to the college?</p>
<p>I personally despise the ACT. I felt that all it did was make me race against the clock. I got a decent score, 32, but it's nothing when compared to my SAT score, 1560. The SAT, while not testing "abilities one would gain in high school" or whatever, seemed to me like a better standard of one's actual intellectual talents. Whereas the ACT seemed to be about knowledge, the SAT seemed to be about critical thinking. In reality, critical thinking will go a lot further than just dry knowledge.</p>
<p>I personally despise the SAT. I felt that all it did was make me compete against test makers. I got a decent score (on the PSAT), 200, but it's nothing when compared to my ACT score, 33. The ACT, while not testing "ability to prep for a test and out think test makers" or whatever, seemed to me like a better standard of one's actual intellectual talents. Whereas the SAT seemed to be about rote memorization of vocab and test taking strategies, the ACT seemed to be about ability to learn, retain and analyze useful information . In reality, ability to learn and conceptualize will go a lot further than knowledge of how to beat a certain test.</p>
<p>There seems to be a perception, although I am not sure whether it is true or not, that the ACT rewards kids who work hard in high school and the SAT rewards those who either (1) are naturally intelligent or (2) do enough prep to learn the test tricks. My son actually did no prep for either test, except he had taken the ACT before through a talent search for tag students in middle school. It may have been this familiarity that got him a 36, or maybe because ACT has more math and science, which are the areas he is best at. SAT he took to confirm his PSAT for national merit, no prep at all, not even a practice test, got a 2290. Not sure what that means as to the perceptions of the two tests. My gut feeling is that his ACT would always be better, no matter how much prep he did, because a higher percentage of the test is math and science. For my son in particular, I think that is the difference.</p>