<p>The title says it all</p>
<p>The ACT shouldn’t be super scored at all. The same sections vary in difficulty (one time the science may be harder and the math easier, etc.) so super scoring overestimates people’s abilities.</p>
<p>The same can be said about the SAT so I don’t think that’s a valid answer</p>
<p>I agree w you Lacedat, I mean so many colleges superscore the SAT but not the ACT. I only took the SAT once but took the ACT twice (w/ a 35 superscore but not composite), so that’s not really fair to me compared to people who took the SAT five times. Either superscore for both or not at all, IMO.</p>
<p>Don’t superscore at all!</p>
<p>SAT is a reasoning test, so the highest score you get is your real reasoning ability (the other lower scores don’t show your true reasoning ability). It is also created so that a 700 on one day is equal to a 700 on any other day.</p>
<p>The ACT is an achievement test, and sections vary in difficulty on different days. a 33 is not always equal to a 33 on a different day.</p>
<p>If found this quote in a washington times article:
Some counselors say the ACT folks used to discourage superscoring, insisting that the test parts constituted a whole that should not be broken apart for the sake of grading.</p>
<p>Ehh, not sure if I completely buy that argument. If a 33 on one day isn’t necessarily equal to a 33 on another, then where’s the validity in comparing one person’s 36 on math to another’s 34, taken on different dates? How do your lower sat scores not show your “true reasoning ability”, yet your lower act scores do show your “true achievement ability”?</p>
<p>Their arguments are invalid! 1. ACT is achievement yes, but mainly on reading/science which takes real skill to master. This also requires reasoning. IMO the ACT is a tougher test because maybe you are good at math/english and get a 2000 but if this person can’t be tested under a 35 minute scenario to infer on passages of both science and reading early in the morning then it all goes down hill. What im trying to say is the ACT should be superscored if the SAT has been because no one can create a real argument as to why it should not be.</p>
<p>so i spoke to an admissions counselor of a top 20 school , and she said that the ACT people specifically say NOT to superscore- that the overall score is valid, but the individual scores vary within each test. ( i think someone above said the same thing but more eloquently). The SAT says that their scores CAN be superscored because there is less variance. I find this to be very true.</p>
<p>I can definitely attest to the variance from test to test on the ACT.</p>
<p>The first time I took the ACT I got a 29 in math. With no preparation, I go a 35 in math the second time. The type of problems on my second test were WAY easier for me.</p>
<p>Because the ACT is an achievement test, it tests things that you learned. People don’t learn all the same things. Different tests may also tests different things (on one test, you may have learned more of the concepts than on another test).</p>
<p>The SAT is a reasoning test, and sets every student to the same level (you don’t necessarily have to learn much to be able to do well).</p>
<p>
You get other benefits by taking the ACT. The ACT allows you to cancel your scores at any time where the SAT only allows you to cancel it a couple days after you took the exam. That’s fairly balances out the lack of super scoring. Also some schools don’t require all ACT scores too, even when they require all SAT scores. Even further, some schools allows you to substitute the ACT for an SAT and a subject test. You’re already getting enough of a benefit for taking the ACT.</p>
<p>
Not really.</p>
<p>Well, just as an observation–allowing superscoring of the ACT can be viewed as giving students that have the money and support to afford tutors/prep/multiple tests a distinct advantage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some do, some don’t.</p>
<p>They all have their reasons.</p>
<p>It’s their school, they can run their admissions policy anyway they want.</p>
<p>@bjdkin, same can be said for sat.</p>
<p>And honestly, I think the two are a lot more alike than they’re advertised to be.</p>
<p>It is not clear to me why the same school would superscore SAT but not ACT too although it is the case for most schools that do superscoring. One thing I have concern is that one need to pay for multiple ACT scores submission (unless you send free score reports to the same schools for each test) if superscoring is allowed. That would add the cost to the applicant and may discourage some students to do that making it not a fair practice. For SAT, it is the same cost for sending one or all scores although not all students can afford to take the test multiple times.</p>