<p>I meant that Michigan doesn't require SAT II's. It's not Yale or anything, but it's a pretty good school. :P</p>
<p>The schools I'm applying to are:</p>
<p>U Tennessee Knoxville (safety)
U Illinois - Urbana Champaign
VA Tech
GA Tech
Penn State
U Florida</p>
<p>As far as I know none require or even reccomend SAT II's, even though they are some of the best engineering schools in the country (no way I will get into Caltech or MIT lol).</p>
<p>"The schools I'm applying to are:
U Tennessee Knoxville (safety)
U Illinois - Urbana Champaign
VA Tech
GA Tech
Penn State
U Florida"</p>
<p>Those neither require nor consider SAT IIs for admission.</p>
<p>@ atrophicwhisperer
Ooooh I get it! Yeah UMich is a great school, truly a public Ivy and right up there with UCLA and UC Berkeley</p>
<p>the universities that i'm applying to mostly do not require SAT 2.
i need advice, whether i should take or not.</p>
<p>"mostly do not"
Unless they all do not, you need to take them. Which universities are you applying to?</p>
<p>No. You need at least 2 SAT Subject Tests to get into the "top" Universities.</p>
<p>^^ Not true. The only schools that require SAT IIs despite taking the ACT are Harvard, Princeton, Georgetown, Stanford. Yale, Brown, Dartmouth, etc etc etc which are all top schools do not require SAT IIs if you take the ACT. They will consider them, I'm sure, as they consider everything you send them in your application, but they don't require them.</p>
<p>Honestly, though, no SAT IIs is kind of a red flag at top universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Honestly, though, no SAT IIs is kind of a red flag at top universities.
[/quote]
No, it's not. If a college really wanted SAT IIs, they would say so - Harvard, Princeton, et al do. It's their game and they make the rules. Why would you assume that Yale and Brown lie?</p>
<p>^ It's not that they don't want them, it's that they don't require them. Not taking the SAT II is a little lazy IMO</p>
<p>My son got into top schools without SAT II's. He also had a good ACT score so did not even send his SAT scores at ll as his ACT was higher. that was 4 yrs ago, he has graduated so I'm not sure if things have changed</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not taking the SAT II is a little lazy IMO
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One could say the same about not trying out for the varsity football team (just to give an example of an activity NOT pursued by anyone in my family), but that doesn't mean that a college won't admit someone who lacks that desirable characteristic.</p>
<p>^ Athletics vs. Academics
Not really an fair comparison.</p>
<p>I take it you haven't been admitted to college yet.</p>
<p>It is not a matter of laziness. Some kids have way better things to do on a Saturday morning than to spend it taking a test. If you take the ACT with writing you can get your testing requirements out of the way for most colleges on one Sat. morning. Where is the downside to this? </p>
<p>Second, why would college admissions offices lie or mislead students? If they say that they will take ACT w/ writing in lieu of SAT I and II, then take them at their word. The colleges gain nothing by being misleading.</p>
<p>I personally am wary about the whole SAT = ACT thing. We all know that the west/east coasts love SATs, and we also know that most of the ivy-league acceptances tend to come from those areas. With the SAT being the primary test for so long, I wonder if adcoms truly do adhere to the rules they set up. I've heard stories of people sending in their SAT and ACT scores, and even though their ACT was considerably higher...its possible that adcoms might just compare applicants based on SAT since its easier. It's also possible that some of them may have a bias toward those who take the SAT. If they were comparing a kid who got good scores on SAT/SATIIs vs. a kid who just got a good score on ACT...though the decision may not be entirely because of the testing differences, that difference could be one factor in the decision...</p>
<p>I don't think they would intentionally lie or mislead students, but if you want to play it safe, I'd personally just take them and be on the same playing field as many of the other applicants, so that this minor detail wont cause any irrelevant notions in the adcom heads.</p>
<p>PS. They would gain something by "being misleading". If they want to improve geographic diversity/equality etc, they have to make sure the ACT is not only allowed, but even given special treatment, compared to the SAT. Know that the ACT is prevalent in only certain areas of the country (ie. Midwest), and if these colleges truly want as many applicants from these areas to consider their school, they need to make sure no one is disadvantaged. Problem is, it could be just a PR show...lol @ my paranoia.</p>
<p>^ I agree.</p>
<p>Some schools allow students to apply for ED without SAT II's, but they must take them later on in the year even if they are admitted.</p>
<p>Early</a> Decision</p>