Is an ACT Superscore less impactful than a single test composite score?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no advantage for a one sitting 35 vs a 3 test 35. Just none. Once you are in the right range for that school they no longer look at test results. No school goes back and says well this person had a 36 and the other had a 35 so we will take the kid with the 36. The 35 and the 36 qualified them and the decision is on other things. No one looks at that 36 again.

That is straight-up bullshit. Continue to live in your fantasyland where nobody cares how much test scores are frankensteined to get to the finish line, but no self-respecting AO from a Top 50 school is indifferent to the 36 vs. 35 comparison. They’re just not.

It matters. One-and-done 36 is better than one-and-done 35, and both are better than a super scored 36.

Actually, a 35 is equally impressive as a 36. The application includes a lot more than test scores. A 35 and a 36 are both excellent scores and will get that second look. It's the other parts of the application that matter after that. FWIW, my kid was a one and done 36. His score was actually a 35.5. If he was a 35.25, he would have had a 35 score. That could be a matter of a couple wrong answers in a section.

It’s not equally as impressive. There are far more 35s than 36s. The scores are differentiated for a reason.

Sure, but they’re both 99percentile and will end up in the same pile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no advantage for a one sitting 35 vs a 3 test 35. Just none. Once you are in the right range for that school they no longer look at test results. No school goes back and says well this person had a 36 and the other had a 35 so we will take the kid with the 36. The 35 and the 36 qualified them and the decision is on other things. No one looks at that 36 again.

That is straight-up bullshit. Continue to live in your fantasyland where nobody cares how much test scores are frankensteined to get to the finish line, but no self-respecting AO from a Top 50 school is indifferent to the 36 vs. 35 comparison. They’re just not.

It matters. One-and-done 36 is better than one-and-done 35, and both are better than a super scored 36.

Actually, a 35 is equally impressive as a 36. The application includes a lot more than test scores. A 35 and a 36 are both excellent scores and will get that second look. It's the other parts of the application that matter after that. FWIW, my kid was a one and done 36. His score was actually a 35.5. If he was a 35.25, he would have had a 35 score. That could be a matter of a couple wrong answers in a section.

It’s not equally as impressive. There are far more 35s than 36s. The scores are differentiated for a reason.

They are both very impressive and do the job of getting the application a second look. Very rarely is anyone deciding between two applicants based on a 36 vs. a 35. So in that sense, they are equally impressive. It's like saying a 1570 is way better than a 1560. A 1560 converts to a 35 and a 1570 converts to a 36.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no advantage for a one sitting 35 vs a 3 test 35. Just none. Once you are in the right range for that school they no longer look at test results. No school goes back and says well this person had a 36 and the other had a 35 so we will take the kid with the 36. The 35 and the 36 qualified them and the decision is on other things. No one looks at that 36 again.

That is straight-up bullshit. Continue to live in your fantasyland where nobody cares how much test scores are frankensteined to get to the finish line, but no self-respecting AO from a Top 50 school is indifferent to the 36 vs. 35 comparison. They’re just not.

It matters. One-and-done 36 is better than one-and-done 35, and both are better than a super scored 36.

Actually, a 35 is equally impressive as a 36. The application includes a lot more than test scores. A 35 and a 36 are both excellent scores and will get that second look. It's the other parts of the application that matter after that. FWIW, my kid was a one and done 36. His score was actually a 35.5. If he was a 35.25, he would have had a 35 score. That could be a matter of a couple wrong answers in a section.

It’s not equally as impressive. There are far more 35s than 36s. The scores are differentiated for a reason.

They are both very impressive and do the job of getting the application a second look. Very rarely is anyone deciding between two applicants based on a 36 vs. a 35. So in that sense, they are equally impressive. It's like saying a 1570 is way better than a 1560. A 1560 converts to a 35 and a 1570 converts to a 36.

Not quite. A 36 converts to a 1590.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no advantage for a one sitting 35 vs a 3 test 35. Just none. Once you are in the right range for that school they no longer look at test results. No school goes back and says well this person had a 36 and the other had a 35 so we will take the kid with the 36. The 35 and the 36 qualified them and the decision is on other things. No one looks at that 36 again.

That is straight-up bullshit. Continue to live in your fantasyland where nobody cares how much test scores are frankensteined to get to the finish line, but no self-respecting AO from a Top 50 school is indifferent to the 36 vs. 35 comparison. They’re just not.

It matters. One-and-done 36 is better than one-and-done 35, and both are better than a super scored 36.

In context, not really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no advantage for a one sitting 35 vs a 3 test 35. Just none. Once you are in the right range for that school they no longer look at test results. No school goes back and says well this person had a 36 and the other had a 35 so we will take the kid with the 36. The 35 and the 36 qualified them and the decision is on other things. No one looks at that 36 again.

That is straight-up bullshit. Continue to live in your fantasyland where nobody cares how much test scores are frankensteined to get to the finish line, but no self-respecting AO from a Top 50 school is indifferent to the 36 vs. 35 comparison. They’re just not.

It matters. One-and-done 36 is better than one-and-done 35, and both are better than a super scored 36.

Actually, a 35 is equally impressive as a 36. The application includes a lot more than test scores. A 35 and a 36 are both excellent scores and will get that second look. It's the other parts of the application that matter after that. FWIW, my kid was a one and done 36. His score was actually a 35.5. If he was a 35.25, he would have had a 35 score. That could be a matter of a couple wrong answers in a section.

It’s not equally as impressive. There are far more 35s than 36s. The scores are differentiated for a reason.

They are both very impressive and do the job of getting the application a second look. Very rarely is anyone deciding between two applicants based on a 36 vs. a 35. So in that sense, they are equally impressive. It's like saying a 1570 is way better than a 1560. A 1560 converts to a 35 and a 1570 converts to a 36.

Not quite. A 36 converts to a 1590.

True. ACT.org converts 35 to 1540 and 36 to 1590. Also true that this difference likely matters not at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the applicant has taken the ACT twice, but the second time went up in every category. So their highest scores are from one sitting, but it's not their only sitting?

To echo the PP, you don't report the lower scores.

First, understand that many colleges will just ask you to report the scores in the Common App, which asks for your highest scores in each section and highest composite. Colleges that take scores this way do not see the lower scores. Second, the schools that ask for an official report at the time of application will only see the test dates you choose to send them.

The only school that requires applicants to report all their scores, including the lower ones, is Georgetown.

Can someone please explain how colleges that accept self reported scores validate those scores? Or do they just take the student's word?

Those scores are confirmed upon acceptance. You can't lie if that's what you're thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the applicant has taken the ACT twice, but the second time went up in every category. So their highest scores are from one sitting, but it's not their only sitting?

To echo the PP, you don't report the lower scores.

First, understand that many colleges will just ask you to report the scores in the Common App, which asks for your highest scores in each section and highest composite. Colleges that take scores this way do not see the lower scores. Second, the schools that ask for an official report at the time of application will only see the test dates you choose to send them.

The only school that requires applicants to report all their scores, including the lower ones, is Georgetown.

Just to clarify. The Common App has you report your highest scores in each section of the ACT and your highest composite from a single setting (not a superscore). The colleges that superscore will calculate the composite superscore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no advantage for a one sitting 35 vs a 3 test 35. Just none. Once you are in the right range for that school they no longer look at test results. No school goes back and says well this person had a 36 and the other had a 35 so we will take the kid with the 36. The 35 and the 36 qualified them and the decision is on other things. No one looks at that 36 again.

That is straight-up bullshit. Continue to live in your fantasyland where nobody cares how much test scores are frankensteined to get to the finish line, but no self-respecting AO from a Top 50 school is indifferent to the 36 vs. 35 comparison. They’re just not.

It matters. One-and-done 36 is better than one-and-done 35, and both are better than a super scored 36.

You are wrong.

Admissions officers don't care how an applicant gets to 34 or 1500. Get there, and then they can consider the rest of the app. They really don't give a damn if you get a 33 or 1450 on the first pass. Hit 34 or 1500 ultimately. It doesn't matter if it takes a couple of attempts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no advantage for a one sitting 35 vs a 3 test 35. Just none. Once you are in the right range for that school they no longer look at test results. No school goes back and says well this person had a 36 and the other had a 35 so we will take the kid with the 36. The 35 and the 36 qualified them and the decision is on other things. No one looks at that 36 again.

That is straight-up bullshit. Continue to live in your fantasyland where nobody cares how much test scores are frankensteined to get to the finish line, but no self-respecting AO from a Top 50 school is indifferent to the 36 vs. 35 comparison. They’re just not.

It matters. One-and-done 36 is better than one-and-done 35, and both are better than a super scored 36.

You are wrong.

Admissions officers don't care how an applicant gets to 34 or 1500. Get there, and then they can consider the rest of the app. They really don't give a damn if you get a 33 or 1450 on the first pass. Hit 34 or 1500 ultimately. It doesn't matter if it takes a couple of attempts.

- said nobody, ever, whose own score or whose kid’s score was a 1600 or 36 in one attempt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no advantage for a one sitting 35 vs a 3 test 35. Just none. Once you are in the right range for that school they no longer look at test results. No school goes back and says well this person had a 36 and the other had a 35 so we will take the kid with the 36. The 35 and the 36 qualified them and the decision is on other things. No one looks at that 36 again.

That is straight-up bullshit. Continue to live in your fantasyland where nobody cares how much test scores are frankensteined to get to the finish line, but no self-respecting AO from a Top 50 school is indifferent to the 36 vs. 35 comparison. They’re just not.

It matters. One-and-done 36 is better than one-and-done 35, and both are better than a super scored 36.

You are wrong.

Admissions officers don't care how an applicant gets to 34 or 1500. Get there, and then they can consider the rest of the app. They really don't give a damn if you get a 33 or 1450 on the first pass. Hit 34 or 1500 ultimately. It doesn't matter if it takes a couple of attempts.

Per the PP, many elite schools do not accept ACT superscores at all.

Given this, it’s reasonable to wonder if amoung the schools that do accept superscores—and also have access to the full set of scores from each individual test session that went into the super score (via the Common App)—might view an applicant who earned a 36 in a single sitting differently than one who needed multiple attempts to achieve a 35. While the final scores are only one point apart, the applicant who earned a 36 in one sitting could be seen as a stronger test-taker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a slight advantage to single sitting score, but only slight. I'd say she should go ahead and retake. Only Georgetown asks to see all the scores anyway.

You're making this up. Schools don't care---they all say this on tours. Over and over again.

Stop trying to make s$%T up just to cause anxiety in other parents.

not PP, but we were told at highly selective schools the best outcome is a first try single test 35-36 composite. This is opposed to multiple tries to build up composite. If not applying to highly selective schools it probably doesn't matter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no advantage for a one sitting 35 vs a 3 test 35. Just none. Once you are in the right range for that school they no longer look at test results. No school goes back and says well this person had a 36 and the other had a 35 so we will take the kid with the 36. The 35 and the 36 qualified them and the decision is on other things. No one looks at that 36 again.

That is straight-up bullshit. Continue to live in your fantasyland where nobody cares how much test scores are frankensteined to get to the finish line, but no self-respecting AO from a Top 50 school is indifferent to the 36 vs. 35 comparison. They’re just not.

It matters. One-and-done 36 is better than one-and-done 35, and both are better than a super scored 36.

You are wrong.

Admissions officers don't care how an applicant gets to 34 or 1500. Get there, and then they can consider the rest of the app. They really don't give a damn if you get a 33 or 1450 on the first pass. Hit 34 or 1500 ultimately. It doesn't matter if it takes a couple of attempts.

Bingo

[Anonymous]

All they want is to keep their 75%ile reported score high, and to satisfy other "institutional priorities".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, look at your DD's college list. And then look at each college's website.

As of last year, Yale, Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Texas A&M University, and the University of Washington did NOT superscore the ACT. They only considered composite scores from a single test sitting. Always check the school's actual admissions website, not DCurbanmom.

One possible reason these schools may avoid ACT superscoring is the ACT's emphasis on measuring academics overall, reflecting consistency in performance and college preparation. The SAT in contrast is a skills-based test.

I did check the website, and you’re wrong. See the first question on this page: https://admission.brown.edu/ask/standardized-tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All they want is to keep their 75%ile reported score high, and to satisfy other "institutional priorities".

This is what my thoughts are. This is why many schools stayed test optional.