<p>Perfect score on ACT? Not good enough </p>
<p>Perfect score on ACT? Not good enough
April 12, 2006</p>
<p>BY DAVE NEWBART Staff Reporter </p>
<p>In college admissions this year, perfect is no longer good enough.</p>
<p>Adam Ammar scored a perfect 36 on the ACT college entrance exam. Only 251 students out of the 2.1 million who took the test -- .01 percent -- scored so well last year....</p>
<p>Yes Rolly, all 16 of your posts have proven to all who read them that you know everything.</p>
<p>For all newbies reading these boards who have any misconceptions that rollypollyollie has any knowledge whatsoever about this, please ignore him. My D, who scored 35/36 on the ACT and NEVER took the SAT at all was accepted to 5 VERY fine colleges. No SAT. Don't even think that colleges don't look at ACT in the same light as the SAT. With very few exceptions, they do.</p>
<p>I have no experience with the ACT, but with the SAT getting to 1400 (now 2100) is about being intelligent. Getting from 1400 to 1600 (now 2400) is about not making silly mistakes. I'd be willing to bet that above a certain level all of the applicants look the same in term of their ACTS I.e. there is no statistical difference, and the colleges look far more at the rest of the application. This high score could even be harmful if your GPA is low enough to make you look like you weren't applying yourself.</p>
<p>mardad is right. 33 or 35, 1520 or 1600 -- all those scores are 99th percentile. That's enough to allow the reviewer to move on to the rest of the application.</p>
<p>The only college that has expressed a preference for the SAT over the ACT is Princeton. And I expect you mean cachet, not cache--unles you want to hide something.</p>
<p>while agree that taking act doesn't negatively impact your app, i do think it holds less value than an sat score. the reason i say this is because most people assume that 99th percentile on ACT=99th percentile on SAT. I disagree. I believe that the pool of students taking the ACT as a whole are less intelligent than the pool of students taking the SAT. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows. But here's my logic(correct me if I'm wrong). ACT is predominantly taken in the middle states. SAT is more popular everywhere else around the country. If you look at PSAT Semifinalist Cutoffs, the highest cutoffs are where SATs are mostly taken.</p>
<p>Geez, I never had thought of correlating geography and intelligence! Gives geographical diversity an entirely new meaning. And there I was, thinking it was all about different experiences and perspectives. How naive I was. It was Affirmative Action for the less intelligent (yes, I'm being sarcastic in case Epiphany accuses me of suggesting that only people from the NE are smart enough to deserve to get into top schools).</p>
<p>If most people in the Midwest take the ACT, why should they be taking the PSAT?</p>
<p>No, marite, I saw the humor & the sarcasm long before you felt you had to "explain" the obvious to me. Yes, very amusing. Nor did I ever think it was you implying in any underhanded (or overhanded) way that people not from the NE have "lower scores." That was someone else, on another thread. (Yes, I do think that some people correlate geography with intelligence, which is a hilarious prejudice, esp. considering those people are nominally quite educated -- at least I thought.)</p>
<p>Very funny about cachet, too. I also saw that right away.</p>
<p>And just in general I find this thread amusing.</p>
<p>Wake Forest also has a "preference" for the SAT, they will not accept ACT scores at all.</p>
<p>Geez. My daughter did just fine submitting ACT only ... with a rather mundane score to boot. For most colleges, grades, class standing & academic record are more important than test scores, as long as the test scores are consistent with grades. If the school says that they accept ACTs, they accept them. </p>
<p>I noticed along the way that most schools' statistics actually seemed to reflect advantageous positioning for the ACT - that is, among schools that reported score ranges for both ACT & SAT, the score range was broader for the ACT than the statistical correlates for SAT scores. I don't know if this has to do with demographics or what -- but there is no evidence whatsoever that SAT confers an advantage unless the school specifically indicates a preference. </p>
<p>The elite schools don't want the smartest kids; they want the most accomplished and most interesting smart kids.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The elite schools don't want the smartest kids; they want the most accomplished and most interesting smart kids.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hm... So my S at Harvard is surrounded by kids who are not so smart after all. And perhaps he's not, either. He did not score a perfect 1600 or have a GPA off the charts. But he did have something else going for him (no, he does not play the oboe or some obscure instrument; he is not a published author and he has not cured cancer and never will). </p>
<p>Of course, what is one'd definition of "smart?" Is it all in the SAT/ACT scores?</p>
<p>marite, when we visited Princeton last summer, the admissions officer told us that they were no longer preferring SAT over ACT. Two girls from my D's high school were accepted to Princeton on ACT alone. And yes, they applied to several schools that took both, so could have taken SAT. Many of the kids at this overwhelmingly SAT-taking high school opted to take the ACT first last year, because they didn't want to be the "guinea pigs" taking the first SAT with writing administered. (This was my D's reason for taking the ACT). When they performed extremely well on the ACT (their high school has very strong math and science, so this may be why they scored so well), they opted not to bother taking the SAT at all. Most took the ACT again with writing in the fall, not to improve their scores, but to include the writing portion.</p>
<p>I am still amazed at the ignorance (sorry, no sarcasm here, just bluntness) of east-coasters who insist that, somehow, colleges believe the SAT is a superior test to the ACT. We visited >10 east coast schools (all Ivy and top 25 LACs) last summer and ALL said emphatically that they considered both equally. Many, including Yale, though not stating that they "preferred" ACT over SAT, accept ACT ALONE with no need to submit SAT II scores if the ACT is submitted. Because the math level on ACT is higher than on the SAT I, and the ACT has not had the egregious scoring errors that the College Board is now being sued over, the ACT may indeed be a preferred test. My thoughts? If your kid is strong in math and science and is applying to schools who don't require submission of the SAT II if the ACT is submitted, why waste the time and $$$ on anything the College Board puts out? (except, possibly, the AP exams).</p>
<p>Quiltguru:</p>
<p>I'm glad that Princeton has seen the light. I did not understand its policy at all. I have no idea where the ACT-bashers are from. I'm just amused at the presumption that intelligent people live on the coasts (being an East Coast person myself, of course :))</p>
<p>Yes, I was happy to see Princeton change. For awhile their policy was incomprehensible, and seemed to apply to only those applicants whose list of schools was Princeton and BYU ONLY. Completely weird. </p>
<p>Wake still needs work.</p>
<p>With some colleges now requiring 3 SAT II"s in addition to the new SAT I which includes the writing part (writing was my kids' third SAT II with the old SAT I), it makes great sense to just take the ACT if it will allow you to avoid all those extra tests. Taking all those SAT's completely inundates junior year, which with AP's, college visits, and the like, is usually the most intense year of high school.</p>
<p><<< With some colleges now requiring 3 SAT II"s in addition to the new SAT I which includes the writing part (writing was my kids' third SAT II with the old SAT I), >>></p>
<p>When I was applying to UC system (back in the dark ages) we had to have both -- the ACT and the SAT (I don't think there were SAT II tests then - maybe that is why the UC's required both.)</p>
<p>More info- At McGill, in Montreal, Quebec, admissions are totally numbers driven, no essays or extra activities, or even recommendations. For admissions, an American student must have taken the following (unless applying only to Music):</p>
<pre><code>* either the ACT OR
* the old SAT I plus at least three SAT IIs OR
* the new SAT I plus at least two SAT IIs
</code></pre>
<p>So actually, the ACT has a little more weight than the SAT. It is good to have an alternative to the College Board "monopoly".</p>
<p>jlauer,</p>
<p>The SAT 2 were called the Achievement Tests in my day (mid 70s). I do not know for sure but I do not think the UC systems ever required students take the ACTs. However, the threat of switching to the ACTs by the UC system caused CB to change their tests.</p>
<p>Regarding the tests, this year is a bit of an anomoly for students because of all the changes in the tests. Here is what we did. Though I do not think this would be necessary once the testing changes all settle down.</p>
<p>My son took the ACTs in Feb05, no studying, writing included. This was the first administration of the ACT with writing. We viewed it as a trial run for the SATs w/ writing. No reporting required. He did well. He then took the April and May sittings for the SATs w/ writing. Using the old conversion charts (there are no charts that include writing on the 2 tests) he had roughly the same score on both tests.</p>
<p>His observation was that the ACT was a more straight forward test that had time constraints. The SAT test questions were a bit more tricky.</p>
<p>We are on the east coast and personally have no bias one way or another. We probably would if he scored better on one of the two. ;-)</p>