<p>I want to get into the University of Washington, I have everything but my SAT score is too low. I took the ACT in the spring as well and felt that it was much easier and I wasn't dead at the end of the test like when I took the SAT a week earlier. I didn't study at all for the ACT and felt that I did better on it then the SAT.</p>
<p>So I want to study mostly the ACT this summer because I feel more comfortable with it and it would be easier to improve then the SAT.</p>
<p>However... my parents say that I should not waste my time with ACT and stick with the SAT because it is more important. More people take the SAT then the ACT so I should do that too.</p>
<p>What should I do? Like 80% of last years freshmen class sent their SAT scores and only like 20% sent their ACT scores. Why's that? I feel like I can do much better on the ACT and get into the 50%-75% range for the UW then in the SAT where I'm struggling to do the same.</p>
<p>Do colleges REALLY view the two tests equally?</p>
<p>From my understanding, they view each score of the ACT and SAT equally. Though which ever one you’ve done better on, I would use that score for applications. I myself have plans to take the SAT ( depends), I guess I’m almost backwards when it comes to ACT since my first score was low… So you probably should just use which one you’ve done better on, or just send both.</p>
<p>Yes they do look at both tests equally. Whatever test fits you better, study hard for it and do the best you can and send those scores in. A 36 on the ACT is certainly as good as a 2400 on the SAT.</p>
<p>hmm well ya officially they are weighted equally. However, unofficially I just dont see how colleges can see something like a 36 on the ACT as being equal to a 2400 on the SAT. In my humble opinion, the SAT is a harder test and I’d bet money some colleges silently are thinking the same thing. However, some ppl (though a definite minority) do actually do better on the SAT than on the ACT so ya idk.</p>
<p>Okay I’m going to have to clear up this common CC misconception. The two tests are NOT viewed equally. Colleges have a slight preference for the SAT, and the ACT is seen as inferior. My uncle was an adcom for Dartmouth and he said that it is a silent code followed by all top schools. </p>
<p>A 2400 is definitely better than a 36 on the ACT, where you can get 35’s in some sections. Colleges especially realize that most East and West Coasters take the SAT, and the ACT is only used by kids who didn’t score well. Also, the ACT is unfairly seen as the test for the hardworkers who study all day, and not the test for the academically talented. Some people don’t realize exactly how much the adcoms can glean from a person’s testing data. Others say the ACT is more relevant because it focuses on applying what students have learned in their classes, but that’s BS. Colleges, for right or wrong, use these tests to figure out students’ natural aptitude. </p>
<p>Colleges say they accept either test, but my uncle said that’s because they all have major deals and agreements with the testing companies.</p>
<p>You’ll never get any official source to admit the colleges’ preference in print. But both the SAT and ACT are completely different (albeit imperfect) tests, so why would they ever been seen as perfectly equal? It’s politically correct to say, “Oh, there is absolutely no distinction,” but that’s just silly. If I were you, I would study hard and take the SAT.</p>
<p>Anectodes aside, that has no basis in fact. If there is a preference, one strong enough to influence admissions, we should easily see a discrepancy in the test score ranges of admitted students. That is, a pattern arises where the percentiles of one range of test scores are wildly different from the percentiles of other test. No such pattern exists. I’m pretty damn sure that if you take all the data and statistically analyze them there would be virtually no difference between the test score ranges, in terms of national percentiles. </p>
<p>Really, anectodes are so overrated. It seems people keep forgetting that the SAT was revamped so it could be MORE like the ACT.</p>
<p>For UWashinton you are fine with either test. Only reason they have mostly SAT applicants is because that is the test that predominates in the high schools there.</p>
<p>Okay Ray I know kids like you who scored well on the ACT but not as well on the SAT and try to vigorously defend the ACT. But to answer the topic question, the test is definitely inferior, at least for top, Ivy-level schools.</p>
<p>If you want to see facts, there are admission stats. Some schools don’t even mention ACT statistics, but I found some on the MIT website. If you check, students scoring in the highest category (34-36) on the ACT only had a 17% admit rate. Theoretically, ACT advocates claim that 34-36 is equal to about 2250-2400 right?</p>
<p>On the other hand, just by judging sections alone, it is evident that SAT was superior. On the Math and CR sections, a students with a 750-800 were accepted 19% and 27% respectively. Kids with 2250-2400 were accepted at even higher rates.</p>
<p>Oftentimes the facts are confused when high ACT-scorers try to defend the test by shrugging off the evidence.</p>
<p>Nice try kid. I went to school in a state where ACT is preferred. And I got 2330 on the SAT. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And it seems you pick and choose statistics at will. The 75th percentile of SAT scores in Harvard was 2370, and for the ACT it was 34. 2370 ~ 34? Exact same situation for Yale and Princeton. </p>
<p>And yet, all of this is idiotic. None of these numbers mean anything unless you analyze them statistically. The only way anybody will know is if they take comprehensive data, run multi-variable regression on them and control the other statistics, and it must be done in an intertemporal manner. Unless you come up with something like this, any stats you have will be useless and uninterpretable. My god, you’d think that with the sort arrogance you have you would’ve learned basic statistics in high school.</p>
<p>I don’t think they’re looked upon differently. But I think with ACT, there are fewer points, and thus fewer distinct points of indication of performance. A given ACT score can be interpreted as equivalent to a range of SAT scores.</p>
<p>Well one reason for the diffrence between 75th percentiles for the SAT and ACT is that you are adding the 75th percentles of the diffrent sections of the SAT and comparing it to the 75th percentile of ACT composite. In reality, the 75th percentile of Haravrd’s SAT composite is not 2370 because people may be 75th percetntile on one or two sections but rarely all three.</p>
<p>Ray it’s silly to first use statistics in your argument, and then claim they’re meaningless, and then use them again, only to be proven wrong. </p>
<p>From your chances post I saw that you had a 2180 SAT and a 35 ACT. Even though you say you took them again and scored 2330, obviously the SAT was a bigger challenge for you. Maybe this is why you defend the ACT. </p>
<p>You can say “all this is idiotic” but the fact is the two tests are not viewed as perfectly equal.</p>
<p>Besides, this analysis is flawed, because you can turn that around. Generally, the lower 25th percentile bound of the ACT and SAT scores are roughly equal. If you apply this logic, then essentially you’re saying that the aggregate SAT score should be HIGHER than the combination of the sections, because one person might be 25th percentile in one test but is likely to be higher on others, which means that the bottom bound SAT score is higher than the bottom bound ACT scores, which again implies favoritism for the ACT, as it means students with low (comparably) ACT scores got in to the school. </p>
<p>Of course, this is conjecture and totally pointless. You are not going to show anything except with rigorous statistical analysis.</p>
<p>Proven wrong? Please. I’ve demonstrated that raw data can be manipulated to show anything you want. That was the point, sorry you missed that.</p>
<p>And I enjoy how you claim it’s silly for me to emphasize rigorous statistical analysis over random, inconsistent interpretation of raw data. Silly indeed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I took my SATs a year before I took my ACT, kiddo. I took my SATs again a month after the ACT and voila. </p>
<p>I “defend” irrational use of statistics. I had more trouble with the ACT math and science sections than I ever did with the SAT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only thing that is a fact is that almost every meaningful school out there says they view the tests equally.</p>
<p>Oh, and the fact that relying on offhand anectodes and picking and choosing random data for your “facts” is absolutely inane.</p>
<p>Look…idk about the statistics, but for me personally and for most people the SAT is just a better, more thorough test. College admission officers probably understand this I mean lets compare them:</p>
<p>ACT English- Tests grammar and rhetoric and so does the SAT English…no difference</p>
<p>ACT Reading- Just plain simple…questions are normally basic and there are only 40 questions</p>
<p>SAT Reading- Tests VOCAB and CRITICAL reading…questions require indepth thought and analysis and there are more than 40 questions </p>
<p>SAT Math- Very tricky and difficult. While concepts tested are more basic…they have to be applied in abstract ways at times. </p>
<p>ACT Math- Again, the section is fairly easy…no real tricks. Only thing is it tests trig that is basic and essentially free points for anyone in PreCalc or above</p>
<p>ACT Science- The most uselss test ever taken. It doesnt test science knowledge but “science reasoning.” You don’t need to understand the sciences but apply info, so I dont really see a use for this section AT ALL. SAT 2 Bio, Chem, and Physics tests should be REQUIRED over this section.</p>
<p>Btw…I am not biased bc of my scores (34 on ACT and 2250 on SAT…though I bet its 2300+ after June SAT)</p>