<p>There’s very little room for errors and they have to be in exactly the right places to remain “hidden.” With the ACT you will generally have a one-question tolerance in Reading, which is reasonable since there are often one or two ambiguous questions where one needs to try and pick the least-worst answer. Math, English and Science will almost always require a perfect score to earn a section-36. Of course, some tests turn out to be harder than others, so a one-point adjustment may be made in any given subject (though I’ve never seen one in English) to norm the test to others taken the same year. Sometimes, however, a given test is easier and a single wrong answer in, say, Science will earn you a 34.</p>
<p>So I think both the ACT and SAT have a 2-3 questions wrong tolerance in 200+ questions, but the ACT, due to rounding up from 35.5, gives you latitude on exactly where those mistakes are made and the SAT doesn’t. The percentile for a 36 composite ACT (i.e., 35.5 or better) is 99.96% and for a 2400 SAT around 99.98%.</p>
<p>At this level there’s not a college in the world that will give a tinker’s dam about the difference. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting question. On the whole I think bluebayou is right (post #20^^). But there may be a subtle effect, and here’s where I think kids from ACT-dominant states may have a slight advantage. If a kid from an ACT-dominant state submits ACT scores to elite colleges, they’ll think nothing of it and just evaluate the scores on their own merits. If that same kid submits SAT scores to elite colleges, they’ll probably think nothing of it and evaluate the scores on their own merits, because elite colleges are accustomed to seeing SAT scores and it’s not unusual for top students from ACT-dominant states to take SATs and submit those scores. </p>
<p>It matters, I think, that most elite schools are in SAT-dominant regions, and even those that are in places where the ACT is dominant (e.g., Chicago, Northwestern) get a lot of SAT scores. So basically, kids from ACT-dominant states can submit ACTs or SATs to elite colleges without raising eyebrows.</p>
<p>But I think it may be a little different for kids from SAT-dominant states. Since most elite schools are in SAT-dominant regions and get most of their applications from SAT-dominant states, it may raise an eyebrow if a kid from an SAT-dominant state submits only ACT scores. The natural inference is that the SAT scores are likely not as strong. And that might—underscore “might”—subtly influence the adcom’s impression of the file. On the other hand, if the ACT scores are strong, that’s a plus. And if there’s not an SAT score that would negatively affect the school’s reported SAT medians or middle 50%, that’s at least not a negative. Beyond that, if the reported ACT score would positively influence the school’s reported ACT median or middle 50%—especially if it’s in the top quartile–then there’s probably a net positive effect. And in any event, reporting a weaker SAT score is only going to hurt the file. So I’d say notwithstanding the subtle perception effect, the kid with a stronger ACT than SAT is going to be better off reporting the ACT score.</p>
<p>tokenadult can probably provide the link to the CB research paper on the development of the concordance tables. I read it several years ago. However, as I recall, it was not based on anything like the full possible population of 1.4 million. The sample size was much, much smaller. There were very few students at the top end of the score range on either test. I think the concordance tables are realistic in the mid-ranges. However, in my opinion, there were too few students near the top to place much trust in the conversions in either direction. Also, near the top, individual students’ idiosyncrasies in testing can affect which test “works” better for a given student. I think that bright but sometimes sloppy students will often do better on the SAT (purely a personal opinion–based on an even smaller sample space than the concordances).</p>
<p>The ACT leaves very little time for even the best students to review their answers. Since the SAT is somewhat more generous in the number of questions one must answer per hour, that could give a sloppy worker the extra time needed to recheck and correct answers.</p>
<p>I think that’s basically right. But I’d go a step farther. The SAT and ACT are testing for different things. The ACT has always been been more oriented toward measuring academic “achievement,” i.e., how much do you know? The SAT has always been more oriented toward measuring academic “aptitude,” i.e., what is your native capacity to solve non-obvious problems and discern subtle distinctions? Consequently, the “brilliant slacker” will often do better on the SAT than on the ACT, while the “diligent grinder” will often do better on the ACT than on the SAT. Some do well on both, some do well on neither. I think the best predictor of academic success would probably be SAT + ACT + HS GPA/class rank.</p>
<p>I remember on the first SAT practice test I got 1700ish and on the ACT 29, so to me ACT is much easier; however, I took my first ACT practice test spring of my junior year, so I think I will stick with studying for SATs.</p>
<p>I can’t agree with this. Brilliance determination in IQ testing usually requires superior processing speed; at least the WISC III has a time component. The ACT is the more time-limited test. While it’s true that the SAT has more convoluted questions, it’s rare these days for a student to go into this test with absolutely no idea what to expect – in other words, the style of questions can be learned over time by practice until “translation” into ordinary English becomes automatic. Thus, it seems to me that a “diligent grinder” with previous practice experience should do better on the SAT, given the greater per-question time allowance.</p>
<p>Perhaps I can offer some insight into the thought processes of these “brilliant” students, since I happen to have two sons who each tested in the 150-160 IQ range; the younger one got a 36.0 ACT this year at his first sitting, while the older one got a 35 ACT, but at the age of 13 (he graduated high school at 14). </p>
<p>In the case of my younger son, we would sometimes, for fun, look over the explanations in test prep books and come up with faster solutions. He would look at the entire problem holistically, including the answers. The traditional solution to a given math problem might be a 7-step process, but he would immediately be able to eliminate several of the answers as being out of the possible range or of having “strange components” (“no way you can end up with a square root of 3 element in the numerator”). That might leave two answers only differing by a + or - sign, so he would just do enough to determine the correct sign. One of the non-obvious keys to taking these tests is that you rarely need to actually SOLVE the problems (you already HAVE the answer!), you only need to eliminate the wrong answers.</p>
<p>There are plenty of “backdoor” solutions to these types of problems which typically cannot be taught because they are highly dependent on the specifics of the individual problem and the provided possible answers. The benefit of pulling a solution to a 4-minute problem in 12 seconds is that it gives you a solid block of time to seriously consider the 1-3 ringer questions toward the end and get them right, time after time.</p>
<p>While the non-math sections don’t yield quite as much of an edge, the idea of looking at the problem holistically and attacking a question from multiple perspectives simultaneously amounts to a strong advantage for the exceptional child under tight time constraints. If you reduce the time constraint, however, you also reduce the exceptional child’s biggest advantage over the “diligent grinder.”</p>
<p>PCP - I live in Massachusetts (SAT heavy) and my D only submitted ACT scores. She was admitted ED to her first choice college (not an Ivy or near-Ivy, but still selective). We had to withdraw her other applications, of course.</p>
<p>OK, I see your point with respect to diligent test prep allowing the hardest-working students to improve their position on the SAT. But I think that’s just as true for the ACT, if not more so. My D1’s ACT math and science scores were not particularly strong the first time she took the test, because she was literally not “up to speed”; she just didn’t have enough time to finish those sections, much less to go back and check her work. Through diligent test prep she upped her computational and simple mechanical speed considerably, and substantially improved her ACT scores. Test prep for the SAT is different; it’s more conceptual and strategic, familiarizing yourself with the kinds of questions they ask, the standard little tricks embedded in the questions, and learning to play the odds if you can eliminate some answers. That’s all much more straightforward on the ACT where the questions are generally less tricky and there’s no penalty for guessing wrong. So I still say it takes a certain kind of strategic intelligence to do well on the SAT that simply isn’t a factor on the ACT, which just wants to know what you know and, with respect to math especially, how fast can you do straightforward computations.</p>
<p>Schools say they take both, and there’s no reason not to believe them. These days most kids applying to selective schools take both. Why would it seem more suspicious to see only an ACT than to see only an SAT. And given score choice, why not be suspicious of a second, lower SAT (or ACT for that matter) score out there. I have to assume that schools evaluate what they see and don’t factor in what they don’t see.</p>
<p>My first kid did significantly better on the SAT. He prepped better for it, and after prepping for the PSAT, he was already familiar with the types of questions. He had to switch gears for the ACT, and the “time pressure” made it more difficult for him. After prepping for the SAT, I wonder if a kid might “over-read” ACT questions, looking for a “trick” that’s not there.
I chose to focus on the PSAT/SAT only, though we’ve lived in ACT dominant states. Kid #2 was happy with first SAT and done with testing. If kids #3, 4+ are unhappy with SAT score, then I’d try ACT again. IMO it is easier to prep for the SAT–maybe I’m just used to it. Students should still consider taking both–one test session or the other just might be a better/luckier day.</p>
<p>While I agree that the Science section of the ACT is nearly all about speed-reading, it does test for Reasoning abilities (or purports to), which the SAT generally includes on its math portion.</p>
<p>D did almost exactly the same on SAT vs ACT when you compare the scores on the concordance tables. But interestingly, when she looked at the national percentiles for her ACT and SAT scores, her comparable ACT score was roughly 10-15% higher on the ACT national percentile ranking as compared to the national percentile on the earlier SAT she took.</p>
<p>So, she went with her ACT score. I’m not sure it really mattered much in the scheme of things.</p>