worth trying to improve on a 34 ACT? (cross-post)

<br>

<br>

<p>Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 141
^^xiggi - Even if schools superscore, there are some schools that DO care how many times a test was taken and if a score was earned in one sitting! This is especially true of schools that don’t allow score choice! So, the number of retakes is NOT totally irrelevant. I have worked in college admissions and can attest to this.<<<</p>

<p>Great! Years ago I issued a challenge to anyone who could offer verifiable details about a school that penalized multiple sittings or rewarded the single sittings. A decade later, this board still waits with bated breath. </p>

<p>But, heck, here is your chance. Where did you work and in what capacity? How did the score appear on the reader files? What scale was used by the committees? </p>

<p>Fwiw, non allowing score choice is NOT an indication that single sittings are preferred. It has to do with providing a full and honest history of testing.</p>

<p>xiggi, can you prove the opposite?</p>

<p>YDS. </p>

<p>That is a fool’s errand. It works the other way. If someone pretends that Fact A exists, the burden of proof rests with that person. Hence, why I challenged anyone who pushed that mythical tale to offer some evidence. I also offered to contact the reported school and verify the claim. </p>

<p>Now that I have answered with this roundabout answer, let me add that I did contact 60 schools from the top USNews and all schools confirmed that they either super scored or used the best sitting and DID NOT weigh down multiple sittings. Posts about this might still be available on the 2003 board. </p>

<p>In addition, I can point out to the seminal research by Tom Fischgrund who is one of the few who studied the impact of perfect SAT scores. He provided real cases including a tester with 5 SAT who was accepted at Harvard. If the 800 lbs gorilla of admissions can overlook five scores attempts, chances are good that the lower rated school will not be more selective. </p>

<p>Lastly, I had the chance to review extensive admission data part of a research on early admissions, and it was blatantly obvious that the number of sittings had no bearing nor relevance on the admissions results. Not to mention that the details of the individual scores were not a component of the original reader files. Only the superscores were listed. </p>

<p>But again, the burden of proof should not rest on the … absence of an event. It should be a lot easier to demonstrate that school XYZ does indeed apply a merit scale on scores depending on how they were earned, and penalizes repeats. After all those years, the silence has been deafening. </p>

<p>On a final note, please realize that I support students attempting the SAT as long as they think they can progress, but that I do not consider repeated official sittings a necessity. A well- prepared student should NOT need multiple sittings. Using official administrations as practices is not ideal. And neither is taking the test without adequate preparation.</p>

<p>Xiggi - I have worked at an Ivy as an admissions reader. That is all the detail that I am willing to give. I honestly don’t care if you believe what I say or not, and I am not taking you up on your “challenge.” I have simply tried to offer people information concerning test taking that is accurate at least for one Ivy.</p>

<p>I don’t know if someone mentioned this already, if so then I’m sorry to waste your time. I would not take it again because many school want to see ALL your ACT scores. If you go down, then you’ll have to send both. Better to just stick with the great score you’ve got and move on to more fun things to do. Congratulations.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Xiggi - I have worked at an Ivy as an admissions reader. That is all the detail that I am willing to give. I honestly don’t care if you believe what I say or not, and I am not taking you up on your “challenge.” I have simply tried to offer people information concerning test taking that is accurate at least for one Ivy. <<<</p>

<p>That is both fair and fully … anticipated.</p>

<p>And, fwiw, it simply joins the other UNSUBSTANTIATED claims made by people who have or have had a peripheral role in the admissions process. </p>

<p>Fwiw, where would the hurt be to, as an example, share how readers evaluated files at say Yale and what documentation readers review. Do they get a full College Board transcript or a summarized version culled by a technician? Are readers expected to express a qualified judgment about the test scores and differentiate single sittings from the super scored ?</p>

<p>Regardless of who believes whom, it remains very clear that schools reward the highest scores and that nobody ever received a bonus for a woulda or shoulda done better. All that matters is the score on the final applications. Scores are neither reduced or grossed up by a matrix based on sittings. They are what they are! </p>

<p>Super scores exist because the schools want to. They could easily develop a penalty system … if it served any purpose.</p>

<p>I say stick with the 34, unless you encounter scholarships with 35 minimum.</p>

<p>Parent of a kid with a 2290 on second sitting – had 1410/2200 the first time. A few people thought he should go for the 2300, but he was happy with his score and felt it would not make an appreciable difference in his odds. </p>

<p>Your D’s efforts are better spent on pursuing her passions (which in turn will be reflected in her essays). </p>

<p>A 34 is excellent; my niece had a 34 (retook after a 32) and got lots of merit $$ at her flagship. Her family did not have $$ for higher tier colleges (long, complicated situation), so she was able to parlay her scores, sal status and 11 APs into advanced standing and other opportunities.</p>

<p>At least some schools only know about the scores you report. From the UW (Madison) forum- admissions person reported that they only know about scores sent to them regarding an ACT question. UW does not superscore (thank goodness, I have a problem with people concentrating on one part of a test at the expense of another).</p>

<p>Xiggi, it’s not that schools penalize you for taking a test more than once, it’s that some elite schools see all your scores, so there’s no point in suffering through the test multiple times unless you really think your initial score doesn’t reflect your best.</p>

<p>If a student scores above the 95th percentile on either the SAT or ACT, I’d say quit while you’re ahead unless you really enjoy sitting for those tests.</p>

<p>I asked the question about multiple scores many times when my kids were applying. Every admissions officer said there was no penalty at all for multiple retakes unless you retook the exam so many times they began to wonder if it was pathological, and they might go looking for signs of OCD in the rest of your application and wonder why you didn’t have better uses for your Saturday mornings. I got a consensus that three retakes wouldn’t cause anyone to blink an eye, four might, but probably wouldn’t.</p>

<p>Massmomm, while I think a score in the 95%ile ought to be good enough, schools are just cagey enough, that I would be inclined to take any SAT twice, just on principal. I had a high school friend whose 750/750 became am 800/700 on the next round - a nice superscored result - and probably indicative of just how much error there is in those scores. I know that in our high school a top 5% GPA is rarely good enough for the most selective schools. Those nearly always require a top 2% GPA.</p>

<p>My son was in a similar situation. In our case he took the ACT again, because a single point gain in any section would bring his composite to the next level. He DID get the single point gain on science but went down a point on the reading. As a result his superscore came up a point, but not his “real” composite score. That’s when we called it quits, as we were clearly in the land of diminishing returns.</p>

<p>He took his SAT twice, too, and came up 100 points on the second attempt. After the second time it was clear that there wasn’t much more room for improvement. He only missed two questions on the math, and we found it unlikely that he was going to do any better. </p>

<p>My son did not find the ACT as onerous as the SAT, so he didn’t mind taking it again.</p>

<p>One downside of a superscored ACT is it is EXPENSIVE to send all those scores to lots of schools! He did better on the ACT than the SAT, though, so we didn’t bother to send SAT scores (other than SAT subject tests where required).</p>

<p>What constitutes a red flag number for how many times the ACT/SAT is taken (from an admissions point of view)?</p>

<p>It’s a difficult call with no clear cut correct choice. Higher scores can never hurt(unless you want to believe a post I read a couple of weeks ago from a boy that had a 2400 and planned to retake for a lower score because he felt there was a admissions bias against perfect scorers), but on the other hand a perfect or near perfect score isn’t a guarantee of anything either. My son also got a 34 this September on his first attempt, and part of me wonders if he could get a 35-36 on a retake, but he doesn’t want to go through it again, has no intention of prepping for something he doesn’t find necessary, and doesn’t feel he is certain to maintain a 34, forget improve upon it. I can point to no tangible evidence that 35-36 will change his outcome next year so I support his decision, and am thrilled with the 34. On the other hand another student may be disappointed with a 34 and feel certain he is capable of better and may find the increase important, and that choice is valid as well.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Massmon, do you assume that I … do not agree with you on the above. I have NEVER advocated taking the SAT on a free for all basis. Actually, I do NOT believe that it is necessary to take it more than a couple of times during a HS career. I truly believe that it is a mistake to rely on official admins to … practice. I also believe that most people could maximize their scores by the time the official PSAT is presented, and that means the fall of the junior year. </p>

<p>My point, however, is that students should NOT hesitate to sit for additional tests as long as they stand a reasonable chance to improve. Some students get extremely nervous when taking tests; others get sick and take the tests in less than optimal conditions. And, my position is supported by the willingness (and quite an obvious one) by the schools to look at all scores and either take the best or cooking up the strongest composite score. Again, if the school were interested (and they are NOT) in having only ONE score analyzed, they could ask for such score. And they could clearly explain that they might discount repeated scores. But the reality is different: they clearly express their desire to see all scores and share that they are superscoring the results – at least at the schools where the practice exists. </p>

<p>For the record, I have long suggested that the current realm of the ACT and the SAT is plainly wrong. I do NOT like the multiple administrations. In MY perfect world, I would flip that boondoggle of the AP and leave the students fighting for those scores on any given Saturday, and preferably with an entirely revised CAT system. On the other hand, I believe that the SAT (and its poor cousin from Iowa) should only be offered once a year (and during the school year) in a manner similar to the PSAT. </p>

<p>Safe and except that it should be a three day testing with an expanded Math, Reading, and Writing daily component that would also eliminate the need for the Subject Tests.</p>

<p>However, since such a logical proposal entirely contradicts the (asinine) positions of the people running the College Board and the clueless high school administrators, it will remain a pipe dream. Too much money is made by TCB and … the AP milking teachers to abandon the sacred cash cow anytime soon. </p>

<p>So, in conclusion, the current practices will continue, and students might either decide to practice and prepare in earnest and be “one and done” or sit for multiple testing … without hesitating about the subsequent analysis by adcoms.</p>