Timing question

Test Preparation ACT Preparation
1

<p>Hello there.</p>

<p>I have been prepping for the ACT from PR and the REAL ACT prep guide. For most of the practice tests I have taken, I have finished all the sections 10-15 min before the time is up ( having left 1-2 questions only ) and this is going at a comfortable pace.. Do you guys think I am all set in terms of my pacing and that it will probably be same on the actual test? or do you guys think that on the actual test, one tends to work slower due to the tests' difficulty?</p>

<p>From what I've read on these boards, time seems to be a big killer even though I have enough time to go back and check my answers..Hence, I'm trying to understand if there's something im missing here... </p>

<p>Thanks</p>

2

<p>There is no way in hell in my opinion that you can finish a Science section on the ACT with "10 or 15" minutes left to go unless you want to purposely fail the exam.</p>

3

<p>yea that seems really diffuclt to believe that you did the science section in 20 mintues and completed all 40questions accurately.</p>

4

<p>I have yet to do reading, but that science is the only one I can't finish at least 15 minutes early. I finished math in like 25 minutes and got 3 wrong. The science curve is obnoxious-- I got 5 wrong and thats a 28.</p>

5

<p>My bad.... The science section I finish approx 5 min before the deadline but the abovementioned range is accurate for the other sections.</p>

6

<p>Yes, the science curve is disgusting. I don't understand the reasoning behind it either. Wouldn't you think that, in the subject that has the fewest high scorers, the curve would be the MOST leniant instead of the LEAST?</p>

7

<p>mo24: It's not that kind of curve. IF what you say is true (the science conversion is tougher, but kids do worse on it), the most sensible hypothesis would be that the test has actually gotten easier over the years while kids have gotten worse at it.</p>

<p>The conversions for the different versions of the test are set up so that scores on all tests are equivalent. They can't just say "Hey, kids are starting to score worse on science than on the other subjects, let's give them a break" because then you couldn't compare a score from 2006 to a score from 2004. Assuming that the conversion was originally set up to be the same for all four subject tests, then IF the conversion for science has gotten harsher than for the other tests, it just means that the content of the science test has actually gotten easier relative to the other tests. IF kids have been doing worse on the science test than on others, that just means that kids have gotten worse at whatever it is that science is testing (or better at the other subjects). But if kids are doing worse on it, then how do they know it's "easier"? Hmm, this doesn't make any sense; maybe one of our premises is incorrect.</p>

<p>In fact, they both are. Take a look at this page from ACT's annual press release: Five-Year</a> History of College-Bound Students' Scores. While science may have fewer very high scores than the other tests, the average score for science is higher than both English and math.</p>

<p>And while the conversion for science tends to be a little harsher than the others at the top half of scores, it's easier at the lower half (you can see this on many conversion tables, and it's reflected in the average scores at each quartile, at the bottom of that pdf). Overall, it's about the same. I suspect that the reason for this has something to do with the standard deviation of raw scores.</p>

<p>Moreover: What difference does it make? Everyone's in the same boat. Does it matter if missing 2 on the science test drops your score to a 32, if you're still in the 99th percentile?</p>

8

<p>Took the ACT today...doh! </p>

<p>English: did fine timing wise.
Math: Had 10-11 questions to go 5 min before the test so had to rush through those..
Reading: did fine timing wise.
Science: Had 10 questions to go 5 min before the test so had to rush through those too.</p>

<p>Phew! I must say that it was harder pacing myself on the real test compared to the practice tests.</p>

9

<p>Mrs. Ferguson: Those are some interesting tables. Thanks for linking them.</p>

<p>Percentile wise on a specific test? I suppose you're right - it doesn't matter, since that's a direct comparison of student-to-student.</p>

<p>TBH though, I think the table has left me even more confused than before. What conclusion have you come to regarding it? It's obvious that the average science score evens out close to the same as the other tests, but but it appears to be skewed much more in favor of the 50% and below percentile scorers, yet may hinder those who scored in the 75% and above.</p>

<p>If the whole purpose of the ACT score conversions is to put them on 'equal footing' with previous ACT tests, why is the Science test consistently having the least amount of high scorers (as in science composite scores) if not for one of the reasons you mentioned above?</p>

<p>Although I agree with the percentile being equal, I have to wonder about the composites. I've heard that some colleges give a flat out scholarship year to year based on composite ACT scores, disregarding the percentiles. Whether it's true or not, i'm not entirely sure. </p>

<p>In addition, can we be absolutely sure that every college uses the percentile rankings instead of the composite scores when deciding admissions? I've heard of some more prestigious colleges having a process that 'weeds out' low scoring potential applicants based on ACT score, among other things. Are we sure that this process too happens based on percentile, if that is true?</p>

<p>To make my point clear, for example, say there is a Student A and a Student B.
-Student A is exceptionally good at Math and English, and gets in the 99% percentile in both. Her scores in those subjects are 34 and 34 respectively. Her average score (composite) on those two tests is a 34.</p>

<p>-Student B on the other hand is exceptionally good at Math and Science, and happens to fall into the exact same percentile in both subjects as Student A. His scores however, due to the curve, are 34 and 32 respectively. Thus, his average score (composite) on those two tests is a 33, even though they are in the exact same percentile as Student A.</p>

<p>Am I correct in how the scoring procedure appears to go? If so, does the way ACT is currently calculating 'the curve' not favor one subject on the test over another one? Again, i'm talking about the benefit being in the composite scores, not percentiles.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
It's obvious that the average science score evens out close to the same as the other tests, but but it appears to be skewed much more in favor of the 50% and below percentile scorers, yet may hinder those who scored in the 75% and above.

[/quote]
I addressed this in my fourth paragraph above.
[quote]
If the whole purpose of the ACT score conversions is to put them on 'equal footing' with previous ACT tests, why is the Science test consistently having the least amount of high scorers (as in science composite scores) if not for one of the reasons you mentioned above?

[/quote]
I don't know, maybe because the conversion is a little tougher at the higher end?
[quote]
In addition, can we be absolutely sure that every college uses the percentile rankings instead of the composite scores when deciding admissions?

[/quote]
No, I don't suppose they do; but it doesn't matter. If the science curve were generally easier than it is on the high end, then all college-bound students would score a little better than they do. Which wouldn't increase the number of places colleges have in their freshman classes, nor the amount of scholarship money they have to give away. They'd just have to adjust their standards.</p>

<p>Now, look at your Student A and Student B. What scores do they get in the subjects they aren't so good at? Let's say Student A is only in the 90th percentile in Science, and likewise Student B is in the 90th percentile in English (suppose they're evenly matched in Reading, to keep things simple). Student A's scores in these 3 tests are 34, 34, and 26, and Student B's are 34, 32, and 28. The average is the same for both.</p>

<p>But that doesn't work for all score points, and there might be something to your argument that the conversions favor those who are better at other subject tests over those who are better at the science test. Maybe that's true, and if it's true, maybe it's deliberate. And maybe it's not a bad idea, from ACT's point of view. They're trying to put out a test that measures what you learned in high school, to compete with the College Board's test, which is supposed to measure "aptitude" (which is, in turn, largly a measure of how smart you are in general, how much money your family and school have, and whether your parents went to college, etc). The science test (formerly called Science Reasoning) is more of an "aptitude" test than any of the other subject tests.</p>

11

<p>Decided to run some tests with the chart of the 2002-2004 act percentiles that is included in the 'act prep practice test' on the ACT website.</p>

<p>It does as you said appear that a lot of the scores tend to average out the same when you account for the curved scores, at least for the 97-98% percentile range. (Hard to compare any of the others, since the percentile ranks between tests differ a lot below that)</p>

<p>One thing I did notice though is that there does seem to be a significant point difference if one of the test scores is a perfect 36. It's most significant between a person scoring a 36 on the reading and a person scoring a 36 on the science (all other test scores the same), where it's .75 or a whole point rounded difference in the final composite score in favor of the person scoring high in science. Whether or not this is because the percentiles at 99%+ are in some cases a lot different, who knows.</p>

<p>I suppose this makes me feel a little better about the science curve, but i'm still left wondering why they choose to do it this way. Probably won't ever know the answer to that though.</p>