SAT and ACT concordance tables -- A revision might be necessary

Parents Forum
1

<p>Many of us have read threads about the SAT vs the ACT. Often, the recommendation is to take both, or a recommendation based on the ACT being recognized at all schools or simply being a bit easier. </p>

<p>Many have used a table that has floated around for a very long time:
<a href="http://www.act.org/aap/concordance/pdf/reference.pdf"&gt;http://www.act.org/aap/concordance/pdf/reference.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Based on reading a good number of posts for students sharing test scores, I believe that many of the theories will be challenged by evidence. I also think that the "shared" scores in April have to be taken with a huge grain of salt. On the other hand, the numbers shared by Questbridge students appear to be more realistic, as there is no need to impress the gallery! I also believe that the schools might not be as charitable with the ACT scores as the concordance table might indicate. </p>

<p>Here are few chosen examples of the type of concordance one might see in 2014:</p>

<p>•SAT I: 1840</p>

<h1> •ACT: 34C (33M, 34S, 33R, 34E)</h1>

<p>•SAT I (breakdown): 650 R, 680 M, 610 W 1940 Total</p>

<h1> •ACT: 35 Composite 35 E 34 M 34 R 35 S</h1>

<p>AT I (breakdown): 580CR, 800M, 610W (8)
•ACT: 34 (34E,36M,32R,35S,8W)</p>

<p>Obviously, there is nothing scientific nor comprehensive in this observation of just a few (chosen with a purpose) examples listed above. However, at a time that the SAT yielded a score of 750 to students who made ONE mistake in 54 question, I believe that the concordance tables are needed to be revised. Just as I believe that schools will (as they should) question the higher scores in the 34-36 range if they continue to correspond to sub1400/1600 MR scores. </p>

<p>My conclusion? Relying on ACT scores only might be no longer be such a wise idea!</p>

2

<p>No need to revise a concordance chart based on a test which is about to be changed anyway. Of course, I also don’t believe about 50% of what I read on CC so that would have to be factored into any new concordance. ;)</p>

3

<p>A very provocative question! Fun to debate, as I’m sure it will be, endlessly…</p>

<p>As Xiggi knows, cherry-picking 3 examples doesn’t prove anything. I would hazard a guess that the typical high-achieving CC poster may be more SAT leaning initially (see, e.g., nearly 4x the posts in the SAT prep thread vs. the ACT), so it’s likely they switch over to the ACT only after failing to achieve their target level on the SAT.</p>

<p>Since >1.5M kids take each test, the concordance just comes from score percentile matching. That presupposes that one test population isn’t “smarter” than the other, which at those numbers is a pretty safe bet. Of course there may be some out there who still cling to the old prejudice that the ACT is the “redneck” test and the test takers/test itself are not of equal stature with their SAT counterparts.</p>

4

<p>This is not about redneck states and prejudice! It is also not about one part of the country being smarter than another. </p>

<p>I did freely share that I deliberately picked the examples and that they were very few. In the meantime, one still wonder why students who are in the 1800-1900 range on the SAT can score above 34 on the ACT, with some regularity. </p>

<p>By the way, the fact that are nearly 4x the posts in the SAT prep thread vs. the ACT is directly related on the wealth of “test prep” material available for the SAT, and the usual abysmal quantity and especially quality of the ACT material available. </p>

5

<p>^Sorry if you seem to have gotten the impression that I was accusing you of that. I was not. And as someone who aspires never to have more than 200 posts on this site, I also know not to pick a fight with someone who has >20,000!</p>

<p>What I was saying is that one (not you, but one) would have to resort to those sorts of arguments to make a case that the two tests can not be made concordant. </p>

<p>And I agree with your comments about the test prep availability driving more posts in the SAT section, although my perception is that more CC-posting students are focused on the SAT. </p>

6

<p>I have always been led to believe that those who do well academically are the ones also doing well on ACT. However, lately the number of perfect ACT scores have almost doubled over 3-5 year period and so one has to wonder if it has become less challenging for more kids.</p>

7

<p>Mobius, rest assured that the number of posts is not relevant here. All of us here have the same voice and right to make it heard. </p>

8

<p>Random thoughts based on my D’s experience:</p>

<p>The SAT essay often pulls down the score.<br>
Many kids take the SAT in the fall to get PSAT prep covered at the same time, and then later take the ACT, and a few more months of school may benefit the ACT score.<br>
D’s subscores in one area of the ACT were “perfect” 18/18 yet the score in that section was still a 35, so also some type of harsh curving there? (I never really got an explanation for that one.)</p>

9

<p>

Who says they do? The only way to put together an accurate concordance table is to look at all testers. Presumably (a bad word, I know) that happened to develop the current tables. They may not be entirely accurate now with the way both tests (annually) change emphasis. I know my two cherry picked scores (both D’s) are accurate to the tables. 34/2230, 34/2280. I am also sure we can find some posters on the forums who have the reverse of what Xiggi posted, a worse ACT than an SAT.</p>

10

<p>Well, here are my anecdotal comments to the contrary. I have 2E kids (gifted but dyslexics) who did much worse on the ACT than SAT due to reading fatigue by the end of the ACT. The way the SAT alternates shorter reading sections with math sections allowed them to have a reading “break.” We did not pursue extra time, so their scores are with normal testing conditions. Their SAT scores were the equivalent of 4 and 5 pts (depending on the child) higher than their ACT scores. </p>

11

<p>@xiggi - DD wrote both. Combined English/Writing score on ACT “lower” than the proposed SAT writing score concordance. ACT Composite was within the SAT CR+M range in the table. SAT written March 2015. ACT written September 2015. Both self studied.</p>

<p>ACT Composite - 34 - SAT CR + M = 1490
Combined English/Writing - 32 - SAT Writing - 730</p>

<p>Feedback was that ACT math was harder than SAT math. Everything else seemed about equal.</p>

<p>ACT Science - 33 - SAT II Biology (M) - 750</p>

<p>Based on my limited data, I think your hypothesis has a bias built into it.</p>

12

<p>A test prep company owner commented to me that there has been a rise in the number of students taking the ACT with accommodations. ( extra time) He suggested the rise in the number of kids with tippy top scores may be skewed by the students who have extra time. in ACT, time management is important. He quoted data to me, but I have no idea where he accessed the data.</p>

13

<p>xiggi–I have been doing test prep (mostly PSAT/SAT, but some ACT, and I live in ACT country) for 10 years. I see what you’re getting at.
I have noticed the same type of thing–though most students have scores that are in or close to conversion table range, it is much more common to see students with top ACT scores, but lower SAT scores than the other way around. How many times have you heard students who can’t seem to raise their SAT scores advised to “try the ACT”? But a student with a lower ACT score advised to try the SAT? Not so much.</p>

<p>IMO (from doing prep with students and my own experience-- I have taken all the prep book tests myself), the ACT is a much more reading dependent/speed dependent test. ACT math is straightforward, like school math.
SAT math is trickier, more brain-teaserish. Good students do well on ACT. Clever students do well on SAT.
A lot of students have trouble with the ACT science section-- they have little experience reading charts/graphs/tables and pulling info. from them (and weeding out irrelevant info.) to answer the questions.</p>

14

<p>Interesting point, and one that has previously crossed my mind based on personal experience. Acknowledging that my sample is limited: I have known students who have done equally well or equally poorly on both exams. However, where a discrepancy among scores occurred, the ACT was always the higher score. Perhaps it has to do with test prep, or the order in which students take the exams. Maybe students who do well on the SAT don’t often take the ACT? Sally brings up a good point about extra time having more impact on ACT scores. </p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, I disagree xiggi. (so what’s new, my friend?) Until the ACT concordance table is updated, relying on ACT scores can be superior to the SAT for many kids.</p>

<p>As atomom points out, the SAT is more ‘tricky’. But as we both know, the setup of its problems really require reasoning ability to solve simply; brute force won’t cut it. (And reasoning is not taught in most K12.)</p>

<p>The ACT is a speed test on 'roids. For kids who can process fast, its an ‘easier test’, since little reasoning needed, with the exception of the so-called Science section which is where the ACT puts most of its reasoning questions against a really short clock. (it also explains the disparate scores, such as 33-33-33-26, as fast readers with few reasoning skills bomb the Science section)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As long as that is counted as a 2400 by adcoms, and USNews…Win-Win! :wink: </p>

16

<p>I did relatively poorly on the SAT (if I remember correctly, which means I don’t even remember my scores… I <em>think</em> somewhere around a 720 on M and 630 on CR? I do remember I got 800 on Math II). Got a 33 on the ACT. I think my ACT was for more indicative of my future success than the SAT. </p>

<p>Personally, I think the tests are a bunch of crap but it has never made sense to me to “convert” one to the other. </p>

<p>I’m from the Midwest where the ACT is Queen. So yes, I certainly know people who were advised to do the SAT if they did poorly on the ACT. Why? Because here, unlike the coasts or competitive schools, the SAT is not the default test. </p>

17

<p>BB, what I think is not important, but if adcoms at the colleges that routinely measure applicants in the high range, a new type of correlation that shows 1900 SAT = 34 ACT might not help the student. Again, you have to compare that th latest SAT Math scores that dinged students 50 points for making ONE mistake out of 54 questions. </p>

<p>I think that the ACT vs SAT comparison has been beaten to a pulp. And that is not really relevant. How the scores are perceived is all that matters. </p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Is that the case though when there are 700 SAT perfect scores vs 1400 ACT perfect scores, when it used to be that there were about equal numbers of perfect scorers on both tests as late as 2010? </p>

<p>I am guessing xiggi is suggesting that adcoms might be discounting ACT scores because they might be noticing these trends?</p>

19

<p>Do you think the adcoms will look at this in geographical context though? SAT has little presence in this part of the west, I haven’t found a prep course this year in the local area, yet all the jrs and motivated sophs sit the PSAT. My kid wouldn’t even consider sitting the SAT or subject tests. The scores reported for the SAT will be from highly motivated kids with a specific target or the kids who think they can optimise their scores, I remember being surprised how low the SATs were. There might also be some parents who are still a bit behind the times and have their kids take SAT for no particular reason. </p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>??? </p>

<p>The table is 2250=34. What am I missing?</p>