[quote]
The ACT organization does not have the resources of the SAT is simply a poor version of the SAT that answers to geographical cronyism.
[/quote]
Maybe that was true in the past, but now every Northeast Ivy accepts it, and starting this year (maybe because of the addition of the writing sample), even MORE are accepting it in lieu of the BOTH the SATs and SAT IIs. In fact, it's hard to find a college that DOESN'T accept it. I can't believe my Ivy alma mater would accept it if were just a poor, toothless, barefoot, pinhead, inter-married stepdaughter to the SAT! :)
Although maybe now with the push for economic diversity, they are thinking a little trailer-park test might be a good thing !:D</p>
<p>For what it's worth, the article makes the point a couple of times that a reason for preferring the act to the sat is that there is no penalty for wrong answers. I think the sat method is more sound because it attempts to eliminate the effect of guessing: if you guess on every question you can't answer, and there are 5 possible choices, one right and four wrong ones, the odds are you'll be right 1 time in 5, more often if you can narrow your guess down to 2 or 3 possible answers. The quarter point penalty for wrong answers balances this.</p>
<p>One thing I wonder about: is the much discussed correlation between family income and sat scores similar for the act?</p>
<p>veronwe: Have no fear...I'm not getting "all worked up," but if the SAT is simply not that important--only one small bit of information among many about a particular applicant--then why keep taking it over and over and over again? Take it once or twice and be done with it. Obviously, some students are simply better at taking standardized tests than others. But more than simply doing well, I think they offer additional information about an applicant, though perhaps the adcoms never see it. I think these tests are timed for a reason; I also believe that taking these types of tests reveals how one "performs" under pressure. For instance, the student who had to take the test while drilling was going on the whole time...if this student did really well, despite this serious intrusion/distraction--then that tells her (if no one else), that she's a seriously focused student. (Just an observation.) Also, as far as people spending money for prep tests--once again, most libraries and h.s. guidance offices have those books with practice tests. Why not save your multiple $25 (or whatever it costs) on taking the formal tests, and just take some free practice tests--again, to get a sense of what a standardized test is like.
And I have no doubt there are many many folks out there with low SAT scores who are wonderfully creative people. No doubt about it. Never said there weren't. I also never said there was any connection "between perfect scores and success." (Never even remotely said anything like that, to my knowledge.) My initial post had nothing to do with that. And just as an aside... I hope you do know that labeling a person with terms such as, "uncreative" and "boring" is a totally subjective exercise--even the comment about "better" schools. What's "better" for one certainly may not be for another.</p>
<p>My daughter took the ACT (no SAT I) and several SAT IIs, and was accepted to a number of selective schools last year. But we live in the Midwest, where taking the ACT is the norm. There is anecdotal evidence (which has been discussed on these boards in the past) that some colleges believe that non-Midwesterners who avoid the SAT I are trying to "game" the system. Folks who live on either coast may want to take that into consideration before bypassing the SAT I entirely.</p>
<p>Xiggi: How did you arrive at your position that "the ACT organization does not have the resources of the SAT is simply a poor version of the SAT that answers to geographical cronyism."</p>
<p>The new SAT seems to be an exhaustingly long and mind numbing test. It is now almost 4 hours long and starts with a 25 minute essay. Then you can have "fun" with these incredibly long reading passages. My younger d is prepping through Kaplan and will take it in May. She is not a happy camper. I would characterize her as an average + student. She is taking chem- will have 4 years of math -5 of language etc. She's not a slacker and just a good all around student. I would have projected her as getting around 1050 on old scoring methods. She's already done 2 practice tests through Kaplan. She says that the test is so long-so involved-so much reading that she's not able to focus throughout the exam. I'm looking at the CollegeBoard Book and I have to agree with her. For the majority of kids, I think this test is going to be a killer. We're beginning to think that she is going to have to selectively concentrate on those portions that she'll do ok on and maybe skip over the portions that will create more problems than its worth. I am thinking ACT for the fall if the SAT score is as dismal as I think it could be. I think for top students the new SAT will still be ok. Remember ETS will never admit a mistake so they're still going to have a similar % of kids with 1400+. But for the average student, I think this test is bad news</p>
<p>I want to thank everyone for bringing this up and discussing this topic. It is a big topic of discussion in my household right now.
My D is a HS JR who took the old SAT in Dec. First time taking it, no prep classes. She got a 1410 630V, 780M. She is not really interested in the Ivies, may apply to Princeton and make a decision if she gets in, but it's not the be all and end all of colleges for her. If they were not changing the test, she would not be taking it again, but because some of the schools she's interested in are asking for the new one, she will be taking it next week. Her weakest part of the old test was the analogies which they are eliminating, so she is figuring to do better on the new one. She is a very strong writer, so she should do well on that portion as well.
The discussion is about the ACT. In NY where we live the ACT has been almost non existent. Hardly anyone ever mentions it or takes it, but some of her friends who did not do as well as they had hoped on the SAT are now taking the ACT. My D was wondering if she should as well.
The advice we have been given was that it really wasn't necessary for her to take the ACT because she did well on the SAT, and she is well within the range for the schools she wants, as well as for scholarships at those schools, but she is still undecided.
I really don't see the need for her to take another test she has the SAT coming up next week, she's taking the SAT II in french in June, she has the AP Frnech test in May and in NY she is required to take Regents which are also standardized tests. In June she has to take the American Regents, the English and the Physics. How many tests do these kids need?
I guess the purpose of this post is to ask for opinions as to whether you think she should take the ACT.
Thanks for all the info, these boards have been quite a find for us!</p>
<p>This message board and so many others on this site are a testament to the absurd frenzy that college admissions has become. Everyone is gaming the system in some way because admissions is perceived as a game to be played-- a perception fueled by the colleges themselves as they pursue high rankings by magazines that know nothing about education and revenue maximization through marketing and enrollment management. It is truly time for a consumer revolt. Rather than spend time on these message boards, spend some time reading about the Education Conservancy at <a href="http://www.educationconservancy.org%5B/url%5D">www.educationconservancy.org</a> and order a copy of their book Education Unranked. This frenzy is unhealthy for us and our kids.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The ACT organization does not have the resources of the SAT is simply a poor version of the SAT that answers to geographical cronyism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Voronwe, my apologies for the very strange sentence. I merged two thoughts and "forgot" to type half of it. I really, really should spend more time editing my posts before posting. </p>
<p>The part I left out was that ACT does not have the vast resources of ETS at its disposal. Accordingly, they seem to lack the huge library of data to provide tests that have gone through a throrough integrity verification process. In the realm of standardized test, the SAT does provide one constant: the questions that have appeared on the past test have verifiable and undisputable answers. However, the same cannot be said for the PSAT, despite coming from the same source. In the same vein, the ACT seems to suffer from unverifiable and vague questions. That is why I consider it to be inferior to the SAT. </p>
<p>My comment about geographical cronyism was poorly written. I should have said that the ACT answered to the demands of a -large- number of schools, but that the choice between ACT and SAT was mostly based on geographical preferences. I apologize for the caustic comment that was much more offensive than intended.</p>
<p>Jack, I only labelled students uncreative and boring because for three years, I had read papers in all academic subjects (history, English, science, and for languages, various projects) that they had written. I have also seen a large number of websites and presentations created by thhese three students. In addition, I was asked to read their college application essays. My judgment, as someone who has taught at the college level for three decades, was not subjective. </p>
<p>I do, however, agree with you that what is "better" for one person in terms of college may be worse for another. By generally accepted standards, though, leaving subjective assessments aside, most people would say that Dartmouth, Harvard, Williams, etc., were "better" than regionally-ranked local colleges or third tier state colleges. I agree that some may disagree.</p>
<p>And no, you did not mention perfect scores! Sometimes posts that are answered get linked to previous arguments! :)</p>
<p>Hi Yankeegirl- We're NYS too-so I know ACT was never on our radar. Be glad your d has 1410 under her belt. That score should be fine for most schools. (older d got into Cornell with 1420). I actually did check ACT website yesterday. Assuming you don't want to test in June because of regents, the next time to take it is October. The test is only given in September in certain states and New York isn't one of them. Honestly with your d's score, I don't think she needs to take the ACT test too. I'm telling you, my d is getting so bummed out by this test that I was on the Fairtest.org (?) site which lists all the colleges that don't use standardized test for admission. I'll be happy when summer is here.</p>
<p>Yes, we've all done educationconservancy.org thing; some of agree with it, some are a bit more suspicious for various good reasons. Your blanket condemnation is off base, however. The vast majority of us are well aware of the gaming; at the same time, I think I can truly say that the majority of parent posters looked beyond the "frenzy" and were delighted, as I was more than once, with the outcomes for our children.</p>
<p>Plus CC is SO MUCH FUN! Check out the "Hijack" thread in the Parent's Cafe if you want to laugh, and want to see how very well indeed all of us understand the college admissions game!</p>
<p>** Xiggi:** That's OK, I still love you! I was just being funny! But as an aside, I have a bunch o' copies of old ACTS, and the answers seem pretty straightforward to me, not vague at all......ah well, vagueness may be in the eyes of the beholder!</p>
<p>If your D is taking the new SAT in March, you'll know by EOM if she scores well on the new verbal. Your D's math score is outstanding, and if she is a good writer, should be able to do much better on the verbal portion of the new.</p>
<p>You might consiser picking up ACT's book (thru amazon) for $15 and take a practice test or two for comparison.</p>
<p>Revoltedmom, welcome to our little world of frenzied parents and students. I hope that you'll stick around a bit and realize that our discussions lead to a more "peaceful" approach to the admission process. This is something that one realizes mostly when it is too late. However, that is also a reason why some people stick around the board, well after being "done". </p>
<p>One of the great attribute of this board is the exchange of information. For instance, we have discussed the positions of the Education Conservancy. While most of my fellow members seemed to endorse the organization, I, for one, considered it to be quite trivial, and to paraphrase your expression, to be more of a testament to the dreams of an overly ambitious former guidance counselor than to a realistic assessment of the problems. I would have been far more impressed if the good GC had formulated a series of viable proposals as opposed to a well-meaning yet sterile wishlist. Just as it is for fairtest,org, it is much easier to report the symptoms than to find a cure. I read the book. I do not regret having read it, but I would never recommend it to anyone. I could have found a ton of similar writings by reading the occasional offerings on school websites. The biggest names in admission love the muse about admissions should be at ... other schools. Deans speak against ED, but would never relinquish it. Deans talk against standardized testing, but spend thousands of man-hours to tabulate the scores. Deans talk against the explosion of EC but clearly reward the "angular" students. Dearns talk against grade grubbing and gamesmanship but clearly seems prone to be gamed to death. </p>
<p>I do not know about you, but I prefer to spend time educating myself about the CURRENT process, understand the rules of the games, and try to beat the odds. There is a ot to gain by reading -and participating- in THIS forum. While the ambition of the EC might be laudable, there is little to learn from their book or website.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would have been far more impressed if the good GC had formulated a series of viable proposals as opposed to a well-meaning yet sterile wishlist. Just as it is for fairtest,org, it is much easier to report the symptoms than to find a cure. I read the book. I do not regret having read it, but I would never recommend it to anyone. I could have found a ton of similar writings by reading the occasional offerings on school websites. The biggest names in admission love the muse about admissions should be at ... other schools. ...I do not know about you, but I prefer to spend time educating myself about the CURRENT process, understand the rules of the games, and try to beat the odds.
<p>I think we would ALL agree with the premise and the problems inherent in the system, or "game." The simple fact is that we are only reacting as normal human beings to the rules of the game; as parents, we did not make the rules......</p>
<p>There is a LOT of pertinent info on college websites, but there is a lot more pertinent info that is NOT on college websites. Moreover, not all HS GC's can see beyond thier state public college systems -- which is not a bad thing, unlees a kids wants to go to school on the other coast, a LAC, or in flyover country. (But, once the boomlet peaks in '09, then those that have been trying to change the system can claim credit since the pressure will diminish by population alone.)</p>
<p>In the meantime, cc is a phenomenal resource. For example, I'll guess that the vast majority of folks on this site did not even know that you don't have to put a HS code down for the ACT. With absolutely zero reporting required, it bcomes stress-free to the kid.valuable info, I'd say.</p>
<p>Now that the cat is out of the bag, I can confess that (although my son did not do this) I have advised parents who are my friends and who have a child applying next year to consider taking the ACT and choosing an appropriate score if it is in their interest. It IS gaming the system in a way, and it is possible because the equivalencey tables are not correct (in my opinion) and because the schools want the test to be available to allow the admissions offices to make decisions that would otherwise be more difficult to justify. Having the ACT around to replace all the SAT stuff allows that to happen with less encumbrances. </p>
<p>In my obsessive phase last year in the middle of my son's senior year, I did a lot of analysis of the schools that accepted studnet based on both, and the percentile rankings that they defined, and in nearly all cases, the group in the ACT ranges were from a measureably less select group than the SAT group. There could be a number of explanations for this, but an applicant would be foolish to simply ignore it, especially if his SAT score was pretty good, but not stellar.</p>
<p>If you want to spend time, studying, taking and retaking tests, that is fine with me. Heck, I make money on those kids. But there is definitely a point of diminishing returns, and to score significantly better after a point takes an extraordinary amount of effort, time , motivation, and, of course, luck. It does not reflect well to take the SAT1 5 times and not improve much. Especially if those ECs are on the weak side.</p>
<p>I will be very surprised if the new SAT does not turn out to be a complete disaaster exasperating the very problems it sought to cure. For starters it is undoubtedly even more biased towards middle class speakers of standard english because of the writing section. Add to that it will be very difficult to find enough qualified readers who can consistently score the essays - of course that was one of the things that appealed to the original promoters of the test. They wanted more random results because they wanted more enphasis on other admissions criteria.</p>
<p>It should be very interesting to see how this all washes out in the next couple of years. A huge proportion of a schools competitive advantage is tied to the average SAT scores of the entering freashman class at a time when for many reasons, some good and some bad, colleges want more freedom to select more diverse student bodies.</p>
<p>My point from above was presented a bit indirectly, I think. If you are able to choose which test to submit[some schools give the choice to you], and if your equivalent score on one is materiallly higher.................well, the answer seems clear.</p>