<p>So I recently went to an info session at Georgetown and when they were talking about admissions criteria they listed all the SAT sections with their mid 50 range but for the ACT they just listed the composite. When I asked about their ACT subscore policy the admissions lady replied with something along the lines of "We do look at the ACT from regions where the ACT is more popular, and we mostly use the Math and Reading scores". She said it in a manner that made me feel like she looked down on the ACT, and seeing as I'm from New York, a classically SAT region, I don't know what to think and it's especially worrisome because I did so much better on my ACT than my SAT and Georgetown is my first choice. </p>
<p>Yes, they are in all regards equal. People like to pretend they’re different, but they’re not. a test on a true bell curve is a test on a bell curve. Considering both the SAT and the ACT are on a bell curve, they are equally difficult (especially since they’re designed to test at approximately the same level).</p>
<p>Getting a 2400 is just as difficult as getting a 36 on the ACT w/ writing (make sure you take w/ writing, not just the ACT). I am tempted to say that the ACT feels more punishing at higher score levels, but this is only my personal take on the matter. I only say this because -1 on an ACT subsection can drop your score on that respective section by 1 or more points (that’s just how it’s curved) whereas on the SAT you can tend to slide by with a slightly higher score (simply put, there is more range in SAT scores numerically than ACT scores >>> a ∆ of 600 v. 36).</p>
<p>But, I digress. Just take both and see what you do better on.</p>
<p>i would love to hear more about this, because i’m extremely worried os OP is. I got a 2000 flat in SAT, but got a 35 in the ACT. Now that converted to SAT is a 2340, which could hopefully get me into top schools such as UC Berkeley or UCLA. But I’ve heard that UC’s prefer SAT more than ACT, and don’t care too much about ACT scores. Is this true?</p>
tigerash: Don’t worry. I had 2 students this past year who chose to submit their composite ACT scores (both "35"s) – and not their SAT scores. Both students secured acceptances from ALL of the UCs to which they applied (UC Berkeley and UCLA among them). For what it’s worth, they also did well applying to other schools (private schools in CA…as well as out-of-state).</p>
<p>As you know, UC admissions committees are typically more “quantitative” in their assessment of applicants than East Coast schools and private schools. If you have strong high school grades and submit great essays for your UC app, you’ll do well in the UC admissions process.</p>
<p>Thanks all for the responses, but once again, you can see how mixed they are! Some are indeed saying that they prefer SAT to ACT, others are saying it SHOULDN’T matter, and still others that it DOESN’T matter. </p>
<p>While it is true that some students will do better on one test over the other, both test the same skills, run for roughly the same time, and are curved in a comparable way. This year was the first year that the ACT was more popular than the SAT, so do you really think that the majority of people applying to US colleges are taking an “inferior” test? There is no way. I know that in the mid-west, the ACT is the main and most popular test, while on the coasts and internationally, the main test is the SAT. They’re both, however, looked upon equally.</p>
<p>^ Agree. The ACT surpassed the SAT for the first time this year in number of students. They test the same but in different ways. Most colleges don’t care which one.</p>
<p>Yeah, I heard that too about the popularity of the test, and I’m sure that both tests have excellent reliability and validity of all sorts (predictive, content etc.) its just that most of the best schools are located on the coasts where the SAT is more popular, and most people from the middle of the country don’t end up going to coast schools. Idk. But you guys are probably right.</p>