<p>If I remember the numbers right, less than two hundred kids a year score a 36 on the ACT. Less than 2000 score a 35 or 36 out of @1.2 million test-takers. So, yeah. You did O.K..35's and 36's are as rare as hen's teeth. BTW , contrary to what others may have suggested a 35 is considered by Collegeboard in their concordance as a 1580/1600 SAT. </p>
<p>Fumble around on the ACT site. The numbers are available nationally and by state.</p>
<p>For example , in Texas there were 7 36's and @180 35's last year.</p>
<p>I was unable to find the information by state on ACT site.
Perhaps it is because we are in the south, which is ACT country, but scores of 35 are not uncommon at all at my daughter's school - at least 3 classmates (out of a 70 student class) got 35s this fall, and a jr. classmate got a 36. All girls, by the way! My daughter felt her 35 ACT score, with no prep, was far easier to attain than her equivalent SAT score (on the 3rd sitting). Despite all that, she much preferred the SAT, and submitted that to her early admit Ivy school.</p>
<p>As the data table shows msjhop, you've got one helluva school if those results are commonplace. ;) For those who didn't look at the chart, there were 1810 kids out of @1.2 million scoring a 35 or above and 3 of them were from msjhop's D's 70 student senior class. That is an absolutely stunning result. What state are you in? I'd like to see how y'all stack up amongst the rest of your state.</p>
<p>Outstanding!! Give that super (and those teachers) a raise. Only 17 kids out of 23,819 test-takers in Mississippi scored a 35 or 36 and 4 of them were from your school. That is just stunning.</p>
<p>Send that test if there are any other schools left to be heard from. You may have the only 3 girls in the state graduating this year with 35's!! As boys tend to score more 35's and 36's. Outrageous. </p>
<p>Over the south as a whole the numbers rough out to "1 out of every 1000 test-takers makes a 35 or 36". For those playing our home version, that's the top .001%. That 35+ plus geographic diversity make a southern girl applying oos to Northeastern, Northern or California elite schools rare as hen's teeth .</p>
<p>The rough 1 of 1000 number was based on data from FL, GA,AL,AR,KY,LA,MS,NC,OK,SC,TN,VA and TX.</p>
<p>BTW , I sold my kid way short, Texas had 7 36's but only 64 35's.</p>
<p>Diane, I think I knew that. I just cramped up. LOL. Hey, at least my @ 1 out of a 1000 was fairly close. Pretty good for a history major. For those who don't want to wade through the numbers here is a nutshell of top scorers by southern state:</p>
<p>State 36 35 # Test-takers</p>
<p>AL 4 42 32,122</p>
<p>AR 3 14 21,000</p>
<p>FL 7 41 58,302</p>
<p>GA 6 29 23,324</p>
<p>KY 2 27 29,943 </p>
<p>LA 2 24 35,742</p>
<p>MS 3 14 23,819</p>
<p>NC 1 14 10,697</p>
<p>OK 2 33 26,297</p>
<p>SC 2 7 13,867</p>
<p>TN 8 59 43,974</p>
<p>TX 7 64 72,294</p>
<p>VA 0 11 10,800</p>
<p>Gee. I feel just like Xiggi. LOL. Now I have to find someone to bill for this or I might have to fire myself.</p>
<p>"Outstanding!! Give that super (and those teachers) a raise. Only 17 kids out of 23,819 test-takers in Mississippi scored a 35 or 36 and 4 of them were from your school. That is just stunning."</p>
<p>The reports on the ACT site are for the 2005 graduating class, not the 2005 calendar year. So those 17 kids graduated last year, and those 4 from that school were not among them.</p>
<p>So far in the 2005-2006 school year (just two test dates--Oct and Dec), there have been at least 25 scores of 35 or 36 in Mississippi, belonging to 22 different kids (3 tested twice). That includes 9 girls and 13 boys; 18 seniors, 3 juniors, and 1 sophomore; and students from 12 different schools. Four schools each had at least 3 of those students.</p>
<p>I'm not stunned by the statement that one school had 4 of the highest scores. It stands to reason that the highest scorers would be concentrated at the best schools--not only because the schools and teachers are better, but because most of the kids that go to them have other advantages (like college-educated parents, and not being hungry), and also because more kids at those schools take college entrance exams. Seems to me that it's all the OTHER teachers in Mississippi that need a raise.</p>
<p>None of this depreciates the achievements of those girls--congratulations to all of them.</p>
<p>And where would these results you speak of be posted? And I don't need to hear that it is "secret" or not available to the public. That helps no one. The data above is the most current data I have found. BTW, I'll congratulate who I want to congratulate and those teachers deserve it at that little school. Phenomenal results. ;)</p>
<p>Are you an ACT employee by any chance? You have to be. All your posts are about the ACT. LOL. If so prepare to get bombarded. Me first, what is the data that is "in" so far on 06 grads for the states I listed? Have the numbers changed dramatically? Why? And why is the September ACT not considered as this year's cycle?</p>
<p>4 schools had at least 3 and we know of one school of the 4 that had 4. That's 13 kids, leaving 9 for the all other schools in the state.
And if you "know" this and you happen to be an ACT employee, what are you (ACT) doing about revamping the tests to address the situation? </p>
<p>As I was looking through the data yesterday there was a clear ses correlation as shown by avg scores by income. Tracked perfectly on the chart I saw. What is being done to combat this "inequity" that you recognize or in your opinion is it not something that can be corrected for by the testing company?</p>
<p>Finally, whew, why the gender gap at the highest score levels?</p>
<p>Nope, not you dulce2. I could guess where your data came from. And congratulations, big-time. I was directing my inquiry to Mrs. Ferguson, but I think I may have asked too many questions. She seems to have it all at her fingertips down to individual schools . Of course my daughter failed to list any school on her test so that her GC wouldn't be tempted to release information without her express permission, so I don't know if that would skew the MS numbers, also.</p>
<p>In our area a 36 at any school is cause for front page of the Local Section of our 60,000 circulation newspaper. IMO 7 out of Texas' 72K test-taking graduates from 05 makes it an infrequent happening, to say the least. Check my math but I think that is 1 of every 10,000+ kids.</p>
[quote]
why is the September ACT not considered as this year's cycle?
[/quote]
It is--but there's no Sept ACT in Mississippi. Just 13 states.
[quote]
4 schools had at least 3 and we know of one school of the 4 that had 4. That's 13 kids, leaving 9 for the all other schools in the state.
[/quote]
I said there were at least that many kids. There may be others. And my numbers only included those that tested on the Oct and Dec national test dates, no special testing.
[quote]
As I was looking through the data yesterday there was a clear ses correlation as shown by avg scores by income. Tracked perfectly on the chart I saw. What is being done to combat this "inequity" that you recognize or in your opinion is it not something that can be corrected for by the testing company?
[/quote]
It isn't something that can or should be "corrected for"; it can and should be corrected. That would mean making sure that all schools have the money to hire good teachers, not just ones in wealthier areas; that all kids have access to books and computers; that all homes have safe, quiet places to study. The problem isn't that tests are biased against poor kids, but that poor kids aren't learning.
[quote]
Finally, whew, why the gender gap at the highest score levels?
[/quote]
Beats me. One thing to keep in mind is that the sample you're looking at--kids who took the ACT (and reported their sex)--is self-selected. This can screw with the numbers in all kinds of ways. For example, if a few more high-achieving girls than boys decided not to bother with the ACT because they are only interested in some fancy east-coast schools, that would remove them from the sample and make the boys look better. Same if more high-achieving girls than boys didn't report their sex.</p>
<p>It's also quite possible that boys are simply better at one or more of the hundred things that the thing measures: Guessing? Gridding bubble sheets? Applying the don't-read-it-just-skip-to-the-questions technique? Getting time-and-a-half (I KNOW boys are better at that one!)? Erasing cleanly? Taking it over and over until they outscore their girlfriends? Programming their calculators? Filling in ovals after time is up? Demanding a handscore? Math?
[quote]
Of course my daughter failed to list any school on her test so that her GC wouldn't be tempted to release information without her express permission, so that her GC wouldn't be tempted to release information without her express permission, so I don't know if that would skew the MS numbers, also.