Just wondering…
Superscoring itself is stupid in nature. Life isn’t superscored. If you’re at a job, you can’t do okay on all the aspects, and great on one, and expect good results. You have to try equally hard on all aspects. If every school did a pure superscore, I would have taken the ACT four times, focusing on one subject each time. I would have gotten a 35 or 36. Part of the test is endurance. I’m tired by the time I get to reading, I don’t want to read those passages. As a result, I only got (and I don’t mean to sound sad about only, I’m proud of it) a 33. Take the test how it’s meant to be, try your hardest.
Cost and company positions. For decades, College Board has sent all SAT scores you have for one price per college and thus it does not cost the student extra to send multiple scores. ACT has always required you to pay separately for sending each test to a college. Thus, colleges recognize that superscoring ACTs requires extra cost for the student to send scores. As to company positions, CB is neutral as to whether superscoring weakens the accuracy of the SAT to predict a student’s ability. ACT is expressly against superscoring ACTs because it asserts it does decrease the accuracy of the test’s predicting the student’s ability. Colleges do not have to accept the test agencies’ positions but as a result of the extra cost to send multiple test scores and ACT’s position, majority have chosen not to superscore the ACT.
@bigwalk: Why should institutions do so? It’s their prerogative to establish policies that best suit their needs, and universities are advantaged by having the most data possible available.
1 Like
Well it does make you wonder though…why does an MIT superscore?
@moscott (re #4): The top National Research Universities (however defined) are not a monolith, they (thankfully) differ in many attributes. Obviously, MIT finds SuperScoring to it’s advantage (or it would not do so), while some of its peers do not. Why do some (very affluent) people drive Fords while others purchase BMWs?
That’s my point. How could it be to an advantage? Ford vs BMW is strictly a preference but buy the buyer of the car. I I can’t think of how it could be an advantage for MIT but not others and vice versa.
@moscott (re post #6);
a. The Ford versus BMW decision is based on purchasers’ preferences/priorities for specific, defined attributes of the two alternative; therefore, it involves buyers’ values.
b. This same overall concept likely applies to your question; To illustrate:
[QUOTE=""]
SuperScoring may reduce Admissions’ personnel and IT requirements (and concomitant expenses), because schools that SS employ already “synthesized” aggregate standardized testing results.
However, schools that do not utilize SS often have their own algorithms (and, thus, may require all SAT or ACT results be submitted), but they have to input score-data from examinations to derive useful information. Obviously, this requires addition personnel (and IT resources) and these fully-burdened costs must be funded (critically, top schools’ Admissions operations are significant financial drains . . . their expenses are appreciably greater than the income they derive).
c. But, by not SSing, some schools may believe they attain more useful and valid admissions information (e.g., they are able to correlate post-matriculation performance with more-detailed standardized testing data).
[/QUOTE]
Accordingly, “an MIT” that SuperScores may value the immediate cost avoidances that accrue, where as “a Duke” that does not SS (but that requires all ACT or SAT results and then applies its own methodology) may value the presumably greater admissions “insight” it develops.
Think about it, only students taking the test more than once can superscore. Not many students can afford taking multiple SAT/ACT particularly if they are not eligible to waiver. Not to mention each score report costs extra for ACT. In addition, superscoring may allow the student to pay game on the test with focus on a different section in each attempt. It is for obvious reason that CB promotes superscoring. ACT does not promote superscoring but there may be more and more schools practicing that in recent years. There is no consensus on the usefulness and fairness of superscoring.
I feel like the sheer number of sections also plays a role…like you could submit like 5 different tests if you wanted to superscore them all. That would be a lot for people to juggle.
Duke superscores the SAT and considers highest sections of the ACT but does not recalculate composite, while requiring all sittings.
@Qwerty568, though that sounds logical, it’s just not true. The majority of schools that super score the SAT are not doing it manually. They have computer programs that pull the highest scores. In reality the ACT only has one more number (4 sections as opposed to 3) - a program could easily be made (and they are out there) that super scores the ACT
@jamesjunkers Oh, I know about the computer program. I meant more in terms of kids juggling a half dozen test dates in order to improve just one section at a time and the ensuing costs.
Well I suppose that the straightforward answer is to keep the playing field level and fair for all applicants. Makes sense. Although, for some students who only take the ACT, the fact that most schools do not superscore it could be seen as a disadvantage towards them. Good thing for the ACT that many people find it less gruesome than the SAT.
MIT has such a rigorous core curriculum that it is probably to their advantage to take a closer look at the math and science score. Since the are teasing those out anyway, they may figure super scoring guarantees that certain students can handle the program. They probably want consistently strong math science, but may bend on reading if super scored that number holds strong. Plus it’s probably advantageous for them to view solid math and science 2 and 3 times around instead of guessing with 1 score if it was a fluke or highly prepped for. There’s more honesty in the numbers so to speak if people supply entire history.
“ACT is expressly against superscoring ACTs”
That may have been true in the past, but that is not what the ACT now states on their website. See: http://www.act.org/aap/infosys/scores.html. The ACT recognizes that different colleges use different methods. They say the do not superscore in their own statistics.
Well, if you think about it , a single ACT score already covers a range of SAT scores. A 30 is equivalent to anywhere from a 1980 to a 2010 SAT, making the ACT not as accurate. Now when you include super scoring into it with the sheer amount of sections the ACT has (five); a single ACT superscore covers a very large range of SAT scores as the margin of error gets bigger. This would make it very hard for the university to evaluate an applicant’s true ability.
Several of the SUNYs superscore the ACT.
@kinaralah The range is not due to a larger margin of error. It is simply the way the scores are scaled. Each point difference in ACT is approximately 60 points in SAT. The margin of error would not multiply even with superscoring.
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I do not think ACT officially “condones” superscoring of the ACT. Many more schools superscore the SAT because CollegeBoard actually recommends that it is done.
At least, that was the reason why on Tufts’ website. I imagine it would be a more broadly held opinion.