<p>well, i’m from the midwest, and the ACT is by far the dominant test here (it’s downright inconvenient to take the SAT, whereas the ACT has two locations each test date). anyway, i think that you are right to say that the difference (if it exists) is minimal, and probably less than a legacy.</p>
<p>Ya…because I am from Nebraska, it was inconvenient to take the SAT. It just seems like a much or difficult test to me and the one that is so common at ivies that they just like ot more than the ACT. Idk…it might just b that I am biased because I see so many people get a 35 or 36 on the ACT and than go take the SAT and get a <2100 score on it.</p>
<p>yeah, i don’t know. we’ll never know. if i serve on an admissions committee someday (which is what i’ve decided i want to do after college for a while), maybe i’ll find out then! this is the first year i’ve seen CC-ites regularly call the ACT an inferior test, and i’ve been lurking here for a long time.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the SAT is better. One of my buddies got a 36 in 10th grade but got below a 2300 on the SAT this November as a junior.</p>
<p>i know several people (rather, about a dozen) who’ve done better on the ACT than SAT. but personally i don’t see how that makes the SAT superior. because some people score lower on it than on the ACT, the SAT is superior? eh?</p>
<p>Another interesting Pton stat that goes against the CC-grain (although it’s only about SAT scores): According to this article - [Princeton’s</a> Admissions Policies Investigated - On Education (usnews.com)](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/06/16/princetons-admissions-policies-investigated.html]Princeton’s”>http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/06/16/princetons-admissions-policies-investigated.html) , Pton admits approximately 50% of its perfect-scoring applicants. Yet according to Pton’s website - [Princeton</a> University | Admission Statistics](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/]Princeton”>http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/) , it admits 26.3% of all applicants with a 2300+ SAT. That’s a pretty significant disparity. I’ve always believed that there was more to the SAT than just getting over 700 per section but at the same time I really thought the difference between a 2300 and 2400 negligible. Is there an explanation?</p>
<p>You should be happy, monstor. :)</p>
<p>Maybe not as many people hit the 2400 as hit 2300+? I know about 20-30 kids in my country who are qualified for and applying to HYPMS. Many high 2300s and not a single 2400 (not even with superscore).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Without superscoring, 2300 is the 99.63 percentile, and 2400 is the 99.98 percentile.</p>
<p>Ya…but there is a degree of grandeur in a 2400. Sadly, I am not one of those lucky perfect scorers, I took the test once, got a 2340 and said that it was good enough.</p>
<p>@monstor: There are few perfect scoring applicants, which is why the #accepted/total would be ~50%. A lot more people score 2300+, so #accepted/total with 2300+ is significantly smaller.</p>
<p>^ Are you saying it’s caused more by a lack of significant data than anything else? Because it sounds like you’re just saying that 2400s are doing better because they have less immediate competition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many believe that a 2300 is equal to a 2400, but that is not true and the statistics that monstor has researched substantiate this. SAT scores are not viewed with a bias slanted towards an individual admission officer’s own preconceived partiality regarding the extent to which standardized testing should be weighed towards admission purposes.</p>
<p>Perhaps the admission statistics for 2400-scorers are less statistically significant than those for “2300-plus-ers” simply because of the lower numbers of the former. But with anywhere from 150-200 cases that apply to Princeton (perhaps double that when considering superscored 2400s if these were taken into account within the data set), the figures are quite reliable. This overtly suggests that a 2400 is in reality more valuable for college admissions than a 2300.</p>
<p>Monstor (or anyone who can provide similar insight), do you know if your statistics encompass applicants’ highest section scores across all test dates or if these signify the highest single-sitting score only? I feel over half-sure that it would consider the combined scores to compile these statistics considering that Princeton - and virtually all other institutions - use the superscore (if one exists) for all applicants for their own profile.</p>
<p>mifune, I believe the Princeton admission statistics are based on superscores. The percentiles that I offered were based on single sittings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, thanks. That was what I thought.</p>
<p>Also, regarding an earlier statement by a member who questioned whether true discrepancies exist behind the test designs for the SAT and ACT, it is true that there is a fair degree of overlap. One’s * achieved * vocabulary will undoubtedly affect a score on an aptitude test (although determining relationships within sentences and the meaning behind these words are aptitude-based skills). Likewise, * aptitudes * for learning and efficient test-taking influence scores on achievement exams. Both are designed to test one’s ability and academic competence. However, aptitude-based tests (e.g. SAT) work to predict future performance while achievement-based exams (e.g ACT, SAT II, AP exams, tests in school) assess present performance, which is particularly the reason why the SAT is so popular at elite colleges and universities.</p>
<p>The difference between the SAT and ACT is most noticeable in their respective math sections. The SAT emphasizes the use of basic algebraic and geometric concepts to solve problems that require reasoning rather than the memorization of any formulas and their application (in fact, the SAT provides all the formulas that you may need at the beginning of the section). Contrarily, the ACT tests mathematical skills that one learns in school through the precalculus level. This requires achievement more than logic. Thus, there is a fundamental difference in their test designs.</p>
<p>^and i did equally poorly on both math sections! baha, guess my achievement AND logic aren’t wonderful.</p>
<p>Yes, there is much correlation between the two. In many instances, however, one’s score(s) in similar area may be framed differently due to the the methodology in which the tests are created or because of scoring circumstances (ACT uses four choices instead of five and does not have a wrong-answer penalty which is the primary reason why the ACT continually gains in popularity).</p>
<p>Although I believe that the SAT is more valuable to colleges, the ACT would be an excellent candidate for all states to implement for high school state testing standards.</p>
<p>mifune, as I recall, not to sound arrogant, but both math sections were pretty insipid. As for “precalculus,” each test had like… 3 trig questions. Even if you haven’t achieved, you could still be fine - and test prep can easily teach you the tiny bit of trig you need to answer those questions.</p>
<p>na the SAT has no trig on it</p>
<p>Princeton has no current preference for the SAT over the ACT (repeat this 5 times). Back in 2004, I believe, and earlier, Princeton indicated that it would only accept ACT scores if required by another college the student was applying to. However, like so many things in admissions, that has changed.</p>