We’ve visited a number of colleges that say the superscore the SAT but not the ACT. Out of curiosity, any idea why that should be the case? My only theory would be if ACT curved entire tests so that the composite scores are comparable but the section scores are not. But that would be unfortunate, because even if not superscoring, colleges certainly review the individual section scores.
This makes absolutely no difference to my kid (only took the ACT once) but we were just curious about why so many colleges do this.
Many more colleges and uni’s are superscoring ACT as well. Superscoring the SAT might be a holdover practice from the old version, which (so I’ve been told) had notable variation in difficulty from test to test. Why adcoms didn’t have confidence in the equating process (ie adjusting the curve for the level of difficulty) - unknown. Maybe the old test’s curves were off. During the year or two of transition, most colleges and uni’s accepted both sets of scores - if the old test was superscored, so was the new (but not across versions). So that might explain why the new test is now superscored. It doesn’t answer why a college wouldn’t average multiple section scores instead of superscoring in the first place.
Personal (and cynical) take: superscoring is just a way for colleges to get to see your pattern of scores. Most will encourage, recommend or even (in a few cases) require that you send in all scores, promising either to superscore or to consider the highest composite as the “official” score. Very few will disclose that they are considering your pattern of scores, but if you submit multiple tests you are certainly exposing yourself to that risk.
Wish I knew. When I was looking at this, I remember having the feeling that the East Coast and Mid Atlantic schools seem to favor the SAT (or it is just more common/preferred in these areas). In the Common Data Set you can see what percentage of applicants submitted which test scores. So I figured maybe they just started with the test that they more commonly receive. If I would have known this way back when, I definitely would have steered DS to the SAT.
Each company is free to set its own policy. Regardless, it is the college, and not CB or ACT, that sets superscore policies.
Aside from the cynical reasons, a key reason, IMO, is financial; ACT charges per test, while the CB fee includes multiple dates on the score report for one fee. Colleges may not see the need for the applicant to incur the additional financial outlay.
Personally, I wish no college superscored. It’s not like life is superscored. In the real world, you can’t fabulous on one aspect of your job and be mediocre on the rest and still be considered a superstar. But I digress.
That financial reason might go away given the increasing popularity of self-reporting. But highly doubt colleges and uni’s are going to deviate too much from what they did “the year before”. It’s enough that they are dropping subject test requirements or the essay component!
Something prompted them to deviate initially with just the (old) SAT and that reason may well be gone now. The real question currently is why they continue the practice and why add the ACT to the mix. Financial, inertia, or a way to see a pattern of scores - all valid prospective reasons.
Perhaps because change in academia proceeds at a glacial pace?
Despite my answer above, I’m not sure one can claim that colleges won’t deviate. While academia does adapt slowly, some admissions offices have changed more rapidly. Just consider the number of colleges in this admissions cycle alone that allow self-reporting and/or who have dropped the SAT/ACT with essay component. Although, I personally think that most colleges that changed policies have jumped on the bandwagon more from FOMO, than anything else.
The financial reason makes some sense. When I said “difference between SAT and ACT policies” I wasn’t referring to the test company policies, I was referring to many colleges’ policies regarding superscoring, that differs between SAT and ACT.
As for asking the colleges themselves, the adcoms running admission information sessions admit (usually up front when they announce the policy) that they don’t know why. Since it doesn’t impact my kid in any way, I’m not about to push, just curious.
My guess is, too, that it has something to do with the way the scores are reported. The SAT is a simple additive score of two “different but equal” assessments. The ACT is a composite score that averages four sub-tests that may or may not be equally valued as predictors of success in college. (I’ve heard different opinions on that, but one thing that does keep popping up is the observation that ACT Math and ACT English are the “important” subscores because they are sometimes seen as more analogous to the SAT Math/Verbal breakdowns.)
Whatever the schools want to do with the subscores, or what private computations they may do with them internally, using a student’s best subscore of each type is no more complicated for the ACT than the SAT. (“Take the average” is not a complex secret formula or anything.)
The division actually started many years ago when colleges started to superscore tests. On superscoring, College Board expressed a neutral view, i.e., it was not against superscoring but also did not express a view that actually favored it. ACT expressed a view against superscoring. Ultimately, it was up to each college to decide but many that adopted superscoring did so for the SAT and not the ACT, at least partly because ACT was against superscoring. Another factor that added to many colleges’ decision not to superscore the ACT was cost to the applicant. SAT has always allowed applicants to send to a college all the scores it has for the applicant in a single order. ACT has always sent only one test result per order and you have to pay for multiple orders to send multiple tests. In more recent years, the number that superscore the ACT has been growing.
Would colleges have initially superscored in order to allow talented-but-weak-testing applicants to meet or surpass a threshold score of some kind? If the adcom requires a 34 in order to get the application into committee, they might have found that superscoring allows a more diverse and interesting applicant pool to make it that far, perhaps even including a bunch of low SES applicants who just had limited resources for tutoring (but fee waivers for re-testing as well as the ability to send all scores on the same report). That dovetails with the cost-savings point of view as well.
Can totally see why SAT allows multiple scores on the same report given that subject tests are often involved. S19 just sent a score report to Georgetown with four sets of scores: his one SAT and his three subject tests. Total cost: $12. Would have cost us $24 - $48 if those sends had been done by testing day or individual test. Of course, he could have taken advantage of free score-send but to me it’s worth the $12 to see the score(s) first before sending.
^That is probably giving colleges more credit than deserved. Superscoring is something that began not too long after USNews began issuing annual college rankings in the 1980s. One factor that was used to determine rankings was the college’s ranges of SAT test scores for admitted applicants who enrolled. Colleges that superscored used the superscores of those who enrolled to report their test ranges, which resulted in having higher SAT ranges that helped improve their rankings.
^ OK, that makes a ton of sense. So they probably declined to superscore the ACT because ACT had negative commentary on the practice till recently OR they weren’t as common a test as they have become in recent years. And wouldn’t you know, ACT changed their tone a bit and colleges now superscore the ACT as well . . .
Perhaps admissions offices evaluate by highest SAT section score rather than by composite. Why does the Common Data Set ask only for SAT section scores and not SAT composite, while it includes ACT composite?
It may be my imagination, but it seems like more colleges are reporting SAT composites on their 2022 class profile pages than in previous years.
I don’t think it really makes a difference. In real life you might be that hard working student who does well because you work hard, vs the student that has more innate ability. By superscoring they are acknowledging your capability on each section of the test. If they’re using holistic admissions, I doubt it really makes any difference to the individual applications - they’re not ranking applicants by test scores, and then issuing acceptances based on that ranking. I doubt many or using a strict points based system either, because they already can’t compare GPA from one school to the next. This policy encourages students to send all scores, since there is no additional cost to do so with the SAT.
It’s interesting to read that ACT used to be against superscoring, as superscoring would seem to encourage taking the test multiple times. You would think they would support the practice as they financially benefit, not only from test result fees but multiple sittings of the test.
"I don’t think it really makes a difference. In real life you might be that hard working student who does well because you work hard, vs the student that has more innate ability. By superscoring they are acknowledging your capability on each section of the test. "
Fair points. But there is also an element of luck involved in testing, and it's much easier for sheer dumb luck to result in a decent superscore than it is a decent one-and-done. The latter is far more likely to be the result of hard work and/or innate ability than chance. By the way, it's very possible to score well on the ACT/SAT through hard work the first or second time you take it. Standardized testing isn't all about innate ability.
There’s also the point, of course, that you don’t get “do overs” on your college exams and your application might be as good a time as any to start recognizing that reality. But I’m sure there are many other threads debating that particular topic.
“This policy encourages students to send all scores, since there is no additional cost to do so with the SAT.”
That's true about the policy(!), but there may well be a "cost" after all. A few colleges are up-front in admitting that they do look at all your scores. Others - not so much. But why would any college leave your score pattern off the table? After all, the admissions process is "holistic". If there needs to be a tie breaker, things like subject scores might come into play. Not sure why anyone would assume your multiple SAT/ACT retakes wouldn't.
