<p>PC:</p>
<p>I disagree with all your last point. The UC system equates the ACT and SAT using the old concordance table (and their own internal studies). The concordance table shows a ACT 30 to be ~ equivalent to an 670 SAT. UCal gives 80 points in its admissions calculation to an ACT subscore of of 30 and also gives 80 points to a SAT of 680, (which is close enough for government work).</p>
<p>[College</a> Search - Georgetown University - SAT®, AP®, CLEP®](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board) </p>
<p>I’m not so sure that the data are wrong on the College Board site, which is what bluebayou has suggested. More likely, the small percentage of ACT-submitters just are a very unrepresentative subset of Georgetown’s applicants as a whole. </p>
<p>(Note: Georgetown requires SAT Subject Tests, so in the reported year, the college saw SAT Reasoning Tests from almost all applicants, before implementation of Score Choice.)</p>
<p>tokenadult:</p>
<p>Since GU is one of those schools that does not publish its common data set, IMO it has something to hide. And yes, being on the east coast, it is likely overwhelmed with SAT scores. But, it still reports ACT scores for ~25% of matriculants (according to the ipeds). In addition to IPEDS, the other government site (studentaid) shows GU’s ACT range to be 29-33, which just passes the smell test, IMO. Further, the denizens in Iowa (ACT corp) report that GU’s mean is 30.0 (and I guess they should know).</p>
<p>(And, of course, don’t forget that CB doesn’t have a self-interest in accurately reporting ACT numbers…)</p>
<p>if i live on the east coast and am applying to competitive schools, will sending only the ACT disadvantage me? I just like the test better…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s an inference that is persuasive to me from the fact mentioned.</p>
<p>I think the OP was looking at a site with a typo since Georgetown’s ACT middle 50% range is 29-33. You don’t find middle 50% ranges where there is a 7 point difference (which it would be if 26-33) between the 25% ACT and the 75% ACT.</p>
<p>hey blue-- good to “see” ya…on the U Cal calculator, I recall working through my D’s stats & variations of scoring possibilities to come to the conclusion I did above, but as you are the Cal guru, I defer. If I can find that darned calculator again, I’ll share what I (re)discover.</p>
<p>Some students take both tests and submit all scores. They do not necessarily perform at the same level on both. For example, D did great on the SAT, but not quite as strong on the ACT, but all scores were nonetheless submitted. She also only took the ACT once because her SAT scores were high enough that she didn’t worry about improving her ACT scores. Thus, while she was probably admitted on the strength of her SAT scores, the lower ACT ones were likely still reported. I bet that happens quite a bit.</p>
<p>This whole notion of underrepresentated and hooked candidates being able to “get away” with using ACT scores pretty much reeks of east coast elitism. Not to mention, it’s wrong.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Most elite schools require SAT II’s in addition to SAT I (if that’s the route you go). However, a lot of schools require SAT II’s ONLY if you take SAT I, but not if you take the ACT. What that says to me is the ACTs are actually more comprehensive. Georgetown requires three SAT II’s regardless of which route you go. Same with Johns Hopkins.</p></li>
<li><p>A lot of schools have their own conversion numbers between ACT and SAT, but in asking the question directly this year, MOST schools look at ACTs independently without a conversion. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Son did not do as well on SAT I’s as he did on SAT II’s or the ACT. However,it was the case that when you submitted SAT’s you submitted all of them. Not sure how score choice will work as so many schools will opt out. </p>
<p>It is true that you cannot superscore ACT – your composite is your composite. </p>
<p>Son did not submit SATs to those schools who would take either the SAT/SAT II or the ACT alone. And there were a number of them in the “elite” crowd (Colgate, Middlebury, Tufts). Even though he did well on most of his SAT II’s, he didn’t submit at all because then it would show his SAT I’s (which were not in the same league as his 34 composite on the ACT).</p>
<p>In asking our GC if just sending in his ACTs would ultimately hurt him, she said to take schools at their word that they’ll accept either one EQUALLY. Son got into a lot of schools, but for this conversation, it is worth noting that he got into every school where he submitted only his ACTs. Colgate, Middlebury, Hamilton, Trinity and Tufts. He was waitlisted at Amherst.</p>
<p>But the bottom line on any of it is that standardized testing is just ONE measure of a student’s academic record. I honestly think it was the 11 accelerated and AP classes on his record and his involvement in the community on a number of different levels that got him more yesses than no’s when it came to college admissions.</p>
<p>pc:</p>
<p>UC translation tables: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/paths_to_adm/freshman/scholarship_reqs.html[/url]”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/paths_to_adm/freshman/scholarship_reqs.html</a></p>
<p>flvdad:</p>
<p>I think that the opposite is more likely. Few kids will submit a lower ACT score (as did your D) just bcos it costs more money and adds zero value to the app. Instead, what is more likely is that colleges that require Subject Tests receive the higher ACT but also the lower SAT when the Subject Test report arrives. (Of course, with CB’s new score choice, that will change at most colleges next year.)</p>
<p>I’m not sure the disparity between SAT and ACT scores holds up across regions. At the University of Michigan, for example, the 25th-75th percentile ACT and SAT seem very close to the concordance:</p>
<p>University of Michigan</p>
<p>2007 middle 50% ACT
27-31 = (per concordance) 1220-1380 SAT</p>
<p>2007 middle 50% SAT CR + M
1220-1430 = (per concordance) 27-32 ACT</p>
<p>Very close. My hypothesis is this: In addition to superscoring of SAT but not of ACT at many top schools, there’s also a regional factor. The largest number of applications to elite East Coast schools come from East Coast applicants. In the East, the SAT rules, and many students take the ACT only if they do poorly on the SAT I. But generally these are somewhat weaker standardized test-takers. Those Easterners who submit the ACT in lieu of the SAT I (or sometimes in lieu of both SAT I and SAT II, depending on the policy at the particular school) generally do so because they did a little better on the ACT than on the SAT, but often not great, because standardized tests aren’t their strength. In some cases, however, they’ve got stellar grades, ECs, “hooks” (athlete, legacy, URM) or other positives that result in their being admitted. So when reported, their ACT scores show up a notch or two below the SAT scores of their classmates, who did well enough on the SAT that they either never bothered to take the ACT, or didn’t report the scores.</p>
<p>In the Midwest it’s a different story. There, everyone takes the ACT, and you end up with a representative spread of test scores. By and large the only people who take the SAT are those seeking admission to elite schools outside the region (primarily on the East Coast and in California). But there are relatively few of these. Some will do better on the SAT than on the ACT; they’ll report high SAT scores. Some will do better on the ACT, and that’s what they’ll report. These are for the most part very high-end students, so they should tend to pull up ACT medians at the East Coast schools. But there just aren’t enough of them to make all that big a difference in the East Coast schools’ medianbs, as Midwesterners make up a tiny fraction of the applicant pool at most East Coast schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Otoh, Midwestern schools like Northwestern and ND tend to have higher ACT scores than their peer schools on the East coast.</p>
<p>Some other Midwestern schools</p>
<p>Macalester
ACT 28-32 (=1260-1420)
SAT 1250-1440 (=28-32)</p>
<p>Carleton
ACT 29-33 (=1300-1460)
SAT 1310-1490 (=29-34)</p>
<p>Grinnell
ACT 29-33 (=1300-1460)
SAT 1330-1490 (=30-34)</p>
<p>Northwestern
ACT 30-34 (=1340-1510)
SAT 1350-1520 (=30-34)</p>
<p>In short, at top Midwestern schools there is virtually no gap at all between ACT scores and SAT scores, and what little gap there is is easily explained by the widespread practice of superscoring SATs but not ACTs. This is broadly consistent with my hypothesis ^^ that it’s not Midwesterners bringing down the ACT averages at elite East Coast schools; it’s more likely Easterners who did poorly on the SAT, took the ACT as an alternative, did a little better on the ACT but not extremely well, yet got accepted into elite schools anyway on the strength of things like GPA/class rank/ECs/“hooks.”</p>
<p>So if you are from the East Coast and submit your ACT scores which are better will you not get in because they know that you did better on your ACTs than your SATs otherwise you would have submitted your SATs</p>
<p>^What? No, ACT and SAT scores are weighted the same; using one or the other will not hamper your chances. I only used my ACT scores when applying to colleges, and I got into every school (save for Stanford, where I was waitlisted). Schools want to use the highest score you have when reporting their admission stats for that year, so if you scored higher in the ACT than the SAT, use it.</p>
<p>^^ Charliesmom,
I wouldn’t draw that conclusion at all. East Coast colleges probably will assume that East Coast applicants who submit only ACT scores are doing so only because their ACT scores are stronger than their SAT scores. But I don’t think they give a hoot about that. ACT scores are just as good a predictor of college success as SAT scores, and if the candidate has a strong GPA, class rank, ECs, essays, recommendations, etc—and especially if she has the right kind of “hook”–then relatively strong ACT scores only confirm that this is a candidate worth considering for admission. And some fraction of those students will be admitted. I suspect, however, that if there’s a big disparity between the reported ACT medians and the reported SAT medians at given school, the SAT medians (and their ACT equivalents) are probably a better predictor of the candidate’s chances of admission in the regions where the SAT is dominant (primarily the East and West Coasts).</p>
<p>bclintonk-- I like your theory. I’d still bet a paycheck that there’s some funky accounting going on with an east coast school or two that selectively partition some lower scores to the ACT bucket, which don’t ‘count’ as much in rankings or public notice.</p>
<p>bluebayou-- thanks for the link. I recall better now regarding assessing my D’s test scores of all types using the UC scoring methodology. My D happened to do much better on her ACT English/writing subscore than her composite, so with the weighting placed by UC on that section to make it equivalent in weight to the SAT W, her UC score for her ACT looked much better than a simple ACT composite concordance translation.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the UC ACT to SAT (M+CR) conversions do look a bit elevated relative to the Concordance tables (conc) …albeit very slightly. [Do you know why?] For an ACT submitter, looks like UC has a 20 point more favorable view of the SAT conversions (M+CR) than the Concordance tables for ACT ranges from 27 to 33. Here’s what I calculate…</p>
<p>ACT - SAT Conc - SAT UC - DIFF
36 ---- 1600 ----- 1600 ----- 0
35 ---- 1560 ----- 1560 ----- 0
34 ---- 1510 ----- 1520 ----- 10
33 ---- 1460 ----- 1480 ----- 20
32 ---- 1420 ----- 1440 ----- 20
31 ---- 1380 ----- 1400 ----- 20
30 ---- 1340 ----- 1360 ----- 20
29 ---- 1300 ----- 1320 ----- 20
28 ---- 1260 ----- 1280 ----- 20
27 ---- 1220 ----- 1240 ----- 20
26 ---- 1190 ----- 1200 ----- 10
25 ---- 1150 ----- 1160 ----- 10
24 ---- 1110 ----- 1120 ----- 10</p>
<p>Concordance table: <a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/act-sat-concordance-tables.pdf[/url]”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board;
<p>PC: most folks I know consider the the SAT-ACT concordance table as a 30 point =/- range relative to the ACT, particularly bcos the ACT rounds up: a 32 score includes everything from a 31.5 to a 32.25. Thus the 20 point differential you mention is not statistically significant. They had to draw the line somewhere. As I said earlier, close enuf for government work.</p>
<p>bclintonk- That data is nice, but I think it can prove the opposite conclusion- that the ACT is lower in Northeastern schools because of favorable admissions to Midwestern students taking it. After all, Midwestern schools would penalize Midwestern students if anything, while Northeastern schools would prefe3r Midwestern students for geographic diversity. Taking the better score between ACT and SAT scores happens everywhere, and I can’t see why it would benefit ACT takers so much more frequently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That wouldn’t surprise me. But the way I’d expect it to work is that the school quietly suggests to a few “hooked” candidates, e.g., recruited athletes, legacies, and development cases, that they might want to submit ACT scores instead of SAT scores. That way they can admit them below the radar, keeping them from affecting the SAT medians that are prominently reported in U.S. News and on their own websites. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find this improbable. Geographic diversity is nice, but I don’t think it’s a strong enough “hook” that elite colleges would debase their admissions standards for it; it might tip the balance as between two otherwise similarly credentialed candidates, or give a slight edge to the occasional candidate from Nebraska or Wyoming–but you only need one per state to fill out your 50-state roster, and you’d end up giving the same kind of advantage to some kids from SAT-dominant states as well. Besides, there’s no shortage of top-scoring ACT-takers in the Midwest—nor of high-scoring SAT-takers. I don’t think elite eastern schools are so desperate for Midwesterners that they’d need to dip that deep into the applicant pool for them; they’d take the cream of the crop, not those lower down. </p>
<p>No, the more I think about this, the more I think Papa Chicken is probably right—the low ACT medians are probably attributable to recruited athletes and other “hooked” applicants who are substituting ACT scores for probably even weaker SAT scores, and in the process getting themselves off the school’s SAT-median radar screen.</p>