<p>Superscoring is silly. What is to stop someone from taking the test three times, each time concentrating their preparations on one section -- and maximizing their superscore. Such gaming of the tests should not be encouraged -- and the schools that encourage them are enablers. They encourage repeat test taking -- with scores being cherrypicked. </p>
<p>The new CB policy of Score Choice at least maintains the integrity of the test as a whole. Our scores from one sitting should rise and fall together. And students today have a clear choice for submitting SAT, just as we do in reporting ACT.</p>
<p>Will this encourage juniors to take umpteen versions of SAT and ACT? Sure. Will this favor those with money and access to test prep services? Sure. But that is the silliness of the system all round. Until we can develop a consensus around a new system.</p>
<p>i think superscoring is fine. sometimes you just have a bad test. it doesn't necessarily mean you are bad at math or reading, it just means you had a bad day. i think it shows that college adcoms are human beings.</p>
<p>(btw im not biased, my highest score is from a single sitting.)</p>
<p>In addition, if you get an 800 in one section and like 500 in the other two, most college's look at it negatively because they realize what you're trying to do.</p>
<p>I mean for me...superscoring was great. I took the test three times, receiving similar scores each time. All my sections were within fifty points between each test; however, when all was said and done my superscore was more than 100 points higher than any of my individual tests. Honestly, everyone has a bad day and every test is different, so I think superscoring is essential.</p>
<p>dude...AOs are not stupid
they will know what u trying to do</p>