<p>The new policy, starting with the class of 2010, will allow students to take the widely used college entrance exam multiple times without admissions officers seeing their less-than-stellar efforts. Now, colleges receive scores of all the times a student attempted the dreaded test, whether the results were spectacular, mediocre or worse.</p>
<p>"Students were telling us the ability to have more control over their scores would make the test experience more comfortable and less stressful," said Laurence Bunin, senior vice president of the SAT. ". . . We can do that without in any way diminishing the value and integrity of the SAT.
<p>Wow. This is quite the change. There will likely be little effect on admissions, since most school just look at the top score anyway (or at least they say they do). But this could be a death blow in the long-run for the ACT, as that crucial advantage (from some students' perspective anyway) is gone. I'll guess you'll see ACT numbers rise and ACT numbers drop noticeably within a few years of this plan's implementation.</p>
<p>It sounds more like a corporate move to counter the increasing hold the ACT has had instead of decreasing stress for high school students. Between freshman and January or December of senior year, there will be 25, 24 chances to take the SAT (3*7 [chances between grades 9-11] and +4 [for Oct-Jan of 12th grade]). It's likely that someone's overbearing parent will actually take advantage of 20something administrations and just report the the highest scores, without any sign on the score report of doing so. Expect a score increase in the applications to top colleges in the years to come.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Expect a score increase in the applications to top colleges in the years to come.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Agreed. More people will be taking more SATs and with the more taking of them people will have a better probability of scoring high so when applying to college there will be higher test scores.</p>
<p>However on the flip side this will probably begin the extinction of the ACT since many people (not all) who take the ACT do so b/c they have not done well on the SAT. Now they can spend all their time on the SAT. </p>
<p>This will effect college admissions either making it more competative OR reducing the value of test scores (with more people getting 700s lets say perhaps a higher standard like a 750+ is now considered good or maybe adcoms will look at other aspects of applicants)</p>
<p>I see this as a huge money maker for college board... nothing more. This change combined with the price increase of the SAT will make them an incredible amount of new money. Nothing to do with helping students. Everything to do with the almighty dollar.</p>
<p>I agree, sax. This would also be unfortunate for students from families of lower incomes; they can't afford to take the SATs 6-7 times. Because they are less likely to have as dazzling SAT scores as students who take the SATs many times, this plan will just make them (lower-income) look worse in the eyes of an admissions office. :/</p>
<p>People will start taking the SAT every single month if they can just show their best score. Can't say I like this change and I agree with those who think this is just a money maker for the College Board.</p>
<p>Good point bigp. Sad that this may cause some students to take the test over and over and over. Like they don't already have enough stress and enough demands on their time? Will the spots in the test sites fill up sooner, causing an increased pressure to sign up earlier and earlier or for more and more (in case a student gets shut out of a site or two) and then increased locations or increased frequency of testing dates? Scary.....</p>
<p>yup. this move also benefits the wealthy because all these test administrations cost a boatload of money. lower-middle-class families that don't qualify for the fee waivers will be disadvantaged against their richer peers, who will take the test 10+ times and just report their highest. argh.</p>
<p>I agree with what everyone has said. This will definitely benefit the wealthy and disadvantage the poor. Scores will now be ever more competitive.</p>
<p>1) I love the idea, being a Class of 2010'er, for the sake of not stressing out over doing less than satisfactory on ONE SAT ONE time.
2) I hate the idea, being a Class of 2010'er, that you cannot superscore, which in many situations is more advantageous than a unrecorded score.</p>
<p>Do you really think you can take the SAT over and over and colleges not realize?</p>
<p>RR -- why do you think you can't superscore? That decision is up to each college, and I haven't seen yet that they have any intention of changing their policy.</p>
<p>It says that there is a CHOICE whether you want to send one SAT or ALL. If you only opt for sending the best one I'm sure collegeboard will do something to indicate that you didnt sent other sittings. Perhaps top colleges will expect you to choose the first option and send ALL of your tests. Itg also looks better to not hide anything.</p>
<p>AND yes this means death to superscoring, although I'm skeptical that Ivies and other top colleges really did superscore. No one knows.</p>
<p>Colleges superscore becase they are in competition with other colleges to have the highest possible SAT score for their rankings. They Want and NEED to superscore for marketing purposes.</p>
<p>The article clearly states that "students can send one, some or all of their scores". So you can still superscore.</p>
<p>Wow, I will not be surprised if they have numerous options for sending scores each with a specific charge.</p>
<p>I don't think it will kill the ACT...for most kids in the South (and, from what I hear, the Midwest), the ACT is the only one they take, and is preferred by most of the Southern publics.</p>