Hi all - Our HS junior now has two ACT scores, so there is a little more info for us to evaluate in advance of applications season next fall and winter. She scored a 32C on the first (36R, 34E, 31S, 28M) and a 33C on the second (35R, 35E, 34S, 29M). The second composite was a 33.25 (relevant to some questions below). Her “superscore” would be a 33.50, so 34 for schools that round up from a .5 (also relevant to some questions below).
Our kid is most drawn to LACs.
The “hard data” of having scores also brings a few questions more to the fore, and if anyone has thoughts, they will be appreciated.
- ACT Superscoring:
There are comments that appear with some frequency that “very few schools superscore the ACT.” All things being equal, that would seem to put more pressure on ACT kids to score well in single sittings (not a complaint, just an observation).
There are some websites that compile lists of schools that superscore the ACT. FWIW, my sense is quite a few of the “more” or “most” selective LACs do superscore, to be confirmed by examining individual school’s policies as our kid’s list firms up.
Not so much a question I guess, but just a note that with most things college admissions wise, I’m not finding that a general assumption about what “most schools” do when it comes to superscoring the ACT is very helpful or accurate, and the trend seems toward superscoring even the ACT. I’m trying to be mindful of that as our kid thinks about whether to take the ACT a third time or not.
- Quasi-Superscoring:
What does “we look at the highest subsection score from multiple test sittings, but we do not recalculate a superscore composite ACT score” really mean? I don’t really get this.
Many suggest it means the school really does superscore in effect, but not as a formal superscored composite. That does not make much sense to me. To the extent schools have an interest in driving up their middle 50% average ACT (and SAT) number for their admitted students, and I imagine most do to play the “selectivity” and rankings game, wouldn’t they benefit by using an actually recalculated superscore and plugging that in for their admitted students’ ACT range, rather than using (lower) single-sitting composites for those students (and their middle 50% number) but making soft “consideration” of the best single-setting scores in each section?
- Retaking a Third Time:
Our kid’s goal was a single-sitting 33 composite, and it’s a great score. We and she wants testing to be done. Still, there is the usual paranoia, “what if,” “will it make a difference if she scored even higher,” etc. etc. etc. No matter the score (see threads like “should I retake a 35?”), many suffer from the same insecurities as students and parents it seems.
Her second single-sitting, the score computes to a 33.25. A single additional point in any section would have yielded a 33.5 and a round up to 34 as a single-sitting score. So she was as close as one could get to a rounded 34 single-sitting.
The superscored 34 though is based upon a composite that computes to a 33.50. So a third sitting would need to net a full additional superscored composite point to 34.5 to round up again. If I have it right, that means adding a total of four points to her best subscores - gaining four in math (from a 29 to a 33), or three in math and one point somewhere else, etc.
Bottom line, whether good or bad, is there is room for additional improvement in math but not much of anywhere else. The kid is capable of better in math both based on high school performance and practice tests and room for improvement in time-management during the test, but it is also the section that is most challenging and scores the lowest of the four even in practice, no question.
The kid will not be applying to a math-based school/major. Interests lie elsewhere.
All that info leads to these questions, I guess:
If your kid’s list of schools included highly selective LAC (middle 50% ACT scores like 31-33 or 32-34) - reaches for everyone in terms of scores and admission % - and they all turned out to have these policies, what would you suggest:
A. The schools did not superscore or quasi-superscore, is it “worth it” (fill that phrase with whatever meaning you want in terms of admissions chances, avoiding stress of third test, etc.) for a retake in this situation to try for a single-sitting 34 to get to the 75% mark for some schools’ middle 50% composite averages? Understood lots of subjectivity and personal circumstances in terms of “worth it.”
B. The schools superscored: Take a third time?
C. The schools did not superscore but do quasi-superscore: Take a third time? (maybe same question/answer as if they superscore?)
D. The schools use score choice policy: Clearly would report the 33C. Would you report the 32C as well with the 36 English score even though science lower (31 instead of 34) and math lower (28 instead of 29) to show the 36 English and/or to demonstrate the 33C was corroborated by a 32C as well, or just report the 33C because the 36 in English isn’t worth reporting the 31 in science and 28 in math?.
Obviously if the school requires reporting all sittings, all sittings will be reported.
My bias is toward no additional retakes, free the kid of any more testing, and gear up for the applications/essays grind. My hope and belief if the 33 will put her in the “consideration” pile of even highly selective LACs and move to the rest of the application, and no school is going to spend even a moment slicing and dicing the scores like I have. My basic feeling on superscoring is if they superscore and round up from a .5, then a 34 superscore is not in need of improvement driven by score paranoia.
But it is healthy, I hope to admit and explore the paranoia and insecurity that attends so much of this process, and tie that in to “what ifs” about the possibilities of focused attention on the math subsection for purposes of a third retake.
Thanks very much everyone.
