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

[Anonymous]

The issue is test ceiling …

The student who receives a score of 34, we can see their ceiling.

However, the student who scores a 36 with perfect subpart scores of 36, we have no way of knowing whether they had leftover dry powder at the end of the test. We cannot see their ceiling, and that’s why a score of 34 or 35 is not equivalent to a 36, and it’s also why a super scored 36 is likewise not equivalent to a one-and-done 36.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

DP. My kid got a 36 in one attempt, and PP is right. The score is just a threshold the kid has to cross for further consideration.

Untrue, and the evidence of that is right there in the CDS. Schools want the reported 25th to 75th percentile range to be as high as possible, and the pathway to achieving that goal is to accumulate the highest scores possible. Suggesting they are indifferent when choosing between two applicants who are identical but for the fact that one has a 36 and the other has a 34 or 35 is obviously incompatible with what we know of their agenda to boost their 75th percentile.

If all of you “34 is just as good as 36, the schools don’t even check once you meet the 34 standard” experts were right, why would the standardized testing portion of the CDS simply state that the “minimum threshold” is X?

As far as one-and-done, the poise to nail a 36 in one setting, given the pace of the ACT, absolutely has significant meaning over another a student taking four or five administrations to cobble together a 34 or 35. Cannot even believe this needs to be re-stated …

Any score 34 and above is 99th percentile

Good enough for serious consideration, don't you think?

Fast kid vs. fastest kid in a race. Who are you taking?

[Anonymous]

Colleges are aware that many students take standardized tests multiple times to maximize their scores. By asking for full score reports only from the test dates students want included in their superscore, colleges allow applicants to present their best section scores while still gaining insight into their performance across different sittings. This approach serves a dual purpose: colleges can claim they’re evaluating students holistically, while also boosting their reported average scores for rankings.

However, it’s important for parents to realize that while colleges superscore, a high score achieved in one sitting can be seen as superior. A student who performs consistently well across all sections in a single test shows mastery and readiness under pressure—qualities that may stand out more than scores spread across multiple sittings. Colleges are still able to see how many attempts a student made, and a top score in one sitting might carry more weight.

With acceptance rates as low as 4% at many elite institutions, admissions officers are often making decisions based on very fine distinctions. In such a competitive environment, a single high-scoring test could give a student an edge over those whose scores improved over time, as it demonstrates a higher level of consistent performance and academic readiness.

[Anonymous]

My child took ACT twice and submitted 33 composite from a single sitting as all sections were highest on this test date. Also did not do test optional at any school. They hope this single sitting and transparency helps odds. We will really never know...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

DP. My kid got a 36 in one attempt, and PP is right. The score is just a threshold the kid has to cross for further consideration.

Untrue, and the evidence of that is right there in the CDS. Schools want the reported 25th to 75th percentile range to be as high as possible, and the pathway to achieving that goal is to accumulate the highest scores possible. Suggesting they are indifferent when choosing between two applicants who are identical but for the fact that one has a 36 and the other has a 34 or 35 is obviously incompatible with what we know of their agenda to boost their 75th percentile.

If all of you “34 is just as good as 36, the schools don’t even check once you meet the 34 standard” experts were right, why would the standardized testing portion of the CDS simply state that the “minimum threshold” is X?

As far as one-and-done, the poise to nail a 36 in one setting, given the pace of the ACT, absolutely has significant meaning over another a student taking four or five administrations to cobble together a 34 or 35. Cannot even believe this needs to be re-stated …

Any score 34 and above is 99th percentile

Good enough for serious consideration, don't you think?

In 2023, 1.39 million students took the ACT. The breakdown of top scorers is as follows:

ACT 36: 2,542 students (0.18%)
ACT 35: 8,694 students (0.62%)
ACT 34: 11,630 students (0.84%)
ACT 33: 14,612 students (1.0%)

For the SAT, approximately 2 million students took the exam, with the top 1% representing about 20,000 students. Combined, this gives us roughly 43,000 students in the top 1% of standardized test-takers each year (ignoring any overlap between ACT and SAT).

Now, consider the number of available freshman spots at elite institutions (One can sub schools in from the below list, but know that most elite schools are around this class size.)

Princeton University: ~1,300 spots
MIT: ~1,100 spots
Harvard University: ~1,650 spots
Stanford University: ~1,700 spots
Yale University: ~1,550 spots
University of Chicago: ~1,700 spots
Johns Hopkins University: ~1,400 spots
University of Pennsylvania: ~2,400 spots
Caltech: ~235 spots
Duke University: ~1,700 spots

The total estimated freshman spots at these top 10 schools amounts to approximately 15,000–16,000 each year. When you compare this with the 43,000 students in the top 1% of test-takers, it's clear that many highly qualified students are competing for a limited number of spots.

Even if a student is among the top 1% of scorers, they are still facing incredibly stiff competition. The reality is that these schools are not just selecting from top test scorers—they're also considering extracurricular activities, personal essays, recommendations, and other factors. The limited number of available spots at elite colleges means that even those with stellar academic credentials may not secure admission, further highlighting how difficult it is to stand out in such a competitive landscape.

In short, while scoring in the top 1% is an impressive accomplishment, the number of available spots at elite schools is far smaller, underscoring just how competitive the admissions process has become. With so few spots available at top schools and many applicants vying for the same places, a student with a 34 or a superscore must bring something truly great to the table—something that student with a perfect 36 in one sitting may not need to have to be admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

DP. My kid got a 36 in one attempt, and PP is right. The score is just a threshold the kid has to cross for further consideration.

Untrue, and the evidence of that is right there in the CDS. Schools want the reported 25th to 75th percentile range to be as high as possible, and the pathway to achieving that goal is to accumulate the highest scores possible. Suggesting they are indifferent when choosing between two applicants who are identical but for the fact that one has a 36 and the other has a 34 or 35 is obviously incompatible with what we know of their agenda to boost their 75th percentile.

If all of you “34 is just as good as 36, the schools don’t even check once you meet the 34 standard” experts were right, why would the standardized testing portion of the CDS simply state that the “minimum threshold” is X?

As far as one-and-done, the poise to nail a 36 in one setting, given the pace of the ACT, absolutely has significant meaning over another a student taking four or five administrations to cobble together a 34 or 35. Cannot even believe this needs to be re-stated …

Any score 34 and above is 99th percentile

Good enough for serious consideration, don't you think?

I'd rather take the 36, thank you.

[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.

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

DP. My kid got a 36 in one attempt, and PP is right. The score is just a threshold the kid has to cross for further consideration.

Untrue, and the evidence of that is right there in the CDS. Schools want the reported 25th to 75th percentile range to be as high as possible, and the pathway to achieving that goal is to accumulate the highest scores possible. Suggesting they are indifferent when choosing between two applicants who are identical but for the fact that one has a 36 and the other has a 34 or 35 is obviously incompatible with what we know of their agenda to boost their 75th percentile.

If all of you “34 is just as good as 36, the schools don’t even check once you meet the 34 standard” experts were right, why would the standardized testing portion of the CDS simply state that the “minimum threshold” is X?

As far as one-and-done, the poise to nail a 36 in one setting, given the pace of the ACT, absolutely has significant meaning over another a student taking four or five administrations to cobble together a 34 or 35. Cannot even believe this needs to be re-stated …

Because this isn’t how the CDS works or what it’s intended to do. It’s intended to show ranges. And most schools don’t have a single minimum; the threshold for further serious consideration may vary according to other factors—geography, socioeconomic status, etc.

And you’re making a lot of assumptions about schools’ motivations—specifically that they care more than anything else about their 75th percentile scores. I have only ever seen that expressed as an assumption on DCUM and similar boards. I can’t fathom that Yale sees it as critical to their reputation to have a 75th percentile at 36 rather than 35.

The bottom line is that plenty of students with 34s are admitted over students with 36s. I truly believe that a kid with a 34 with more exceptional ECs or awards, for example, would be favored at many top schools over my kid with a 36 and good/normal ECs/awards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

DP. My kid got a 36 in one attempt, and PP is right. The score is just a threshold the kid has to cross for further consideration.

Untrue, and the evidence of that is right there in the CDS. Schools want the reported 25th to 75th percentile range to be as high as possible, and the pathway to achieving that goal is to accumulate the highest scores possible. Suggesting they are indifferent when choosing between two applicants who are identical but for the fact that one has a 36 and the other has a 34 or 35 is obviously incompatible with what we know of their agenda to boost their 75th percentile.

If all of you “34 is just as good as 36, the schools don’t even check once you meet the 34 standard” experts were right, why would the standardized testing portion of the CDS simply state that the “minimum threshold” is X?

As far as one-and-done, the poise to nail a 36 in one setting, given the pace of the ACT, absolutely has significant meaning over another a student taking four or five administrations to cobble together a 34 or 35. Cannot even believe this needs to be re-stated …

Any score 34 and above is 99th percentile

Good enough for serious consideration, don't you think?

In 2023, 1.39 million students took the ACT. The breakdown of top scorers is as follows:

ACT 36: 2,542 students (0.18%)
ACT 35: 8,694 students (0.62%)
ACT 34: 11,630 students (0.84%)
ACT 33: 14,612 students (1.0%)

For the SAT, approximately 2 million students took the exam, with the top 1% representing about 20,000 students. Combined, this gives us roughly 43,000 students in the top 1% of standardized test-takers each year (ignoring any overlap between ACT and SAT).

Now, consider the number of available freshman spots at elite institutions (One can sub schools in from the below list, but know that most elite schools are around this class size.)

Princeton University: ~1,300 spots
MIT: ~1,100 spots
Harvard University: ~1,650 spots
Stanford University: ~1,700 spots
Yale University: ~1,550 spots
University of Chicago: ~1,700 spots
Johns Hopkins University: ~1,400 spots
University of Pennsylvania: ~2,400 spots
Caltech: ~235 spots
Duke University: ~1,700 spots

The total estimated freshman spots at these top 10 schools amounts to approximately 15,000–16,000 each year. When you compare this with the 43,000 students in the top 1% of test-takers, it's clear that many highly qualified students are competing for a limited number of spots.

Even if a student is among the top 1% of scorers, they are still facing incredibly stiff competition. The reality is that these schools are not just selecting from top test scorers—they're also considering extracurricular activities, personal essays, recommendations, and other factors. The limited number of available spots at elite colleges means that even those with stellar academic credentials may not secure admission, further highlighting how difficult it is to stand out in such a competitive landscape.

In short, while scoring in the top 1% is an impressive accomplishment, the number of available spots at elite schools is far smaller, underscoring just how competitive the admissions process has become. With so few spots available at top schools and many applicants vying for the same places, a student with a 34 or a superscore must bring something truly great to the table—something that student with a perfect 36 in one sitting may not need to have to be admitted.

Not every top scorer wants to attend those schools. Sorry.

My 36 one and done didn’t apply to any ivies. He ended up at another top 20 school people like to trash on the forum but it was his first choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

DP. My kid got a 36 in one attempt, and PP is right. The score is just a threshold the kid has to cross for further consideration.

Untrue, and the evidence of that is right there in the CDS. Schools want the reported 25th to 75th percentile range to be as high as possible, and the pathway to achieving that goal is to accumulate the highest scores possible. Suggesting they are indifferent when choosing between two applicants who are identical but for the fact that one has a 36 and the other has a 34 or 35 is obviously incompatible with what we know of their agenda to boost their 75th percentile.

If all of you “34 is just as good as 36, the schools don’t even check once you meet the 34 standard” experts were right, why would the standardized testing portion of the CDS simply state that the “minimum threshold” is X?

As far as one-and-done, the poise to nail a 36 in one setting, given the pace of the ACT, absolutely has significant meaning over another a student taking four or five administrations to cobble together a 34 or 35. Cannot even believe this needs to be re-stated …

Any score 34 and above is 99th percentile

Good enough for serious consideration, don't you think?

I'd rather take the 36, thank you.

I'd rather take the 34/35 with better, GPA, ECs, recommendations, skills/talents etc.

Look up holistic admissions.

It's not just the standardized test score in a vacuum. Some myopic DCUMers post like it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

DP. My kid got a 36 in one attempt, and PP is right. The score is just a threshold the kid has to cross for further consideration.

Untrue, and the evidence of that is right there in the CDS. Schools want the reported 25th to 75th percentile range to be as high as possible, and the pathway to achieving that goal is to accumulate the highest scores possible. Suggesting they are indifferent when choosing between two applicants who are identical but for the fact that one has a 36 and the other has a 34 or 35 is obviously incompatible with what we know of their agenda to boost their 75th percentile.

If all of you “34 is just as good as 36, the schools don’t even check once you meet the 34 standard” experts were right, why would the standardized testing portion of the CDS simply state that the “minimum threshold” is X?

As far as one-and-done, the poise to nail a 36 in one setting, given the pace of the ACT, absolutely has significant meaning over another a student taking four or five administrations to cobble together a 34 or 35. Cannot even believe this needs to be re-stated …

Any score 34 and above is 99th percentile

Good enough for serious consideration, don't you think?

Fast kid vs. fastest kid in a race. Who are you taking?

This ain't the Olympics.

Check the CDS from elite colleges. 100% accepted aren't all perfect scorers. Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

DP. My kid got a 36 in one attempt, and PP is right. The score is just a threshold the kid has to cross for further consideration.

Untrue, and the evidence of that is right there in the CDS. Schools want the reported 25th to 75th percentile range to be as high as possible, and the pathway to achieving that goal is to accumulate the highest scores possible. Suggesting they are indifferent when choosing between two applicants who are identical but for the fact that one has a 36 and the other has a 34 or 35 is obviously incompatible with what we know of their agenda to boost their 75th percentile.

If all of you “34 is just as good as 36, the schools don’t even check once you meet the 34 standard” experts were right, why would the standardized testing portion of the CDS simply state that the “minimum threshold” is X?

As far as one-and-done, the poise to nail a 36 in one setting, given the pace of the ACT, absolutely has significant meaning over another a student taking four or five administrations to cobble together a 34 or 35. Cannot even believe this needs to be re-stated …

Any score 34 and above is 99th percentile

Good enough for serious consideration, don't you think?

I'd rather take the 36, thank you.

I'd rather take the 34/35 with better, GPA, ECs, recommendations, skills/talents etc.

Look up holistic admissions.

It's not just the standardized test score in a vacuum. Some myopic DCUMers post like it is.

Exactly. If you every look at College Confidential forums on admission outcomes, you see many 35 and 36 ACT applicants being rejected, but 33 and 34 being admitted. It's the whole package. I know you spent a ton prepping your kid, but you better make sure they have something else to offer beyond their high scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

DP. My kid got a 36 in one attempt, and PP is right. The score is just a threshold the kid has to cross for further consideration.

Untrue, and the evidence of that is right there in the CDS. Schools want the reported 25th to 75th percentile range to be as high as possible, and the pathway to achieving that goal is to accumulate the highest scores possible. Suggesting they are indifferent when choosing between two applicants who are identical but for the fact that one has a 36 and the other has a 34 or 35 is obviously incompatible with what we know of their agenda to boost their 75th percentile.

If all of you “34 is just as good as 36, the schools don’t even check once you meet the 34 standard” experts were right, why would the standardized testing portion of the CDS simply state that the “minimum threshold” is X?

As far as one-and-done, the poise to nail a 36 in one setting, given the pace of the ACT, absolutely has significant meaning over another a student taking four or five administrations to cobble together a 34 or 35. Cannot even believe this needs to be re-stated …

Any score 34 and above is 99th percentile

Good enough for serious consideration, don't you think?

In 2023, 1.39 million students took the ACT. The breakdown of top scorers is as follows:

ACT 36: 2,542 students (0.18%)
ACT 35: 8,694 students (0.62%)
ACT 34: 11,630 students (0.84%)
ACT 33: 14,612 students (1.0%)

For the SAT, approximately 2 million students took the exam, with the top 1% representing about 20,000 students. Combined, this gives us roughly 43,000 students in the top 1% of standardized test-takers each year (ignoring any overlap between ACT and SAT).

Now, consider the number of available freshman spots at elite institutions (One can sub schools in from the below list, but know that most elite schools are around this class size.)

Princeton University: ~1,300 spots
MIT: ~1,100 spots
Harvard University: ~1,650 spots
Stanford University: ~1,700 spots
Yale University: ~1,550 spots
University of Chicago: ~1,700 spots
Johns Hopkins University: ~1,400 spots
University of Pennsylvania: ~2,400 spots
Caltech: ~235 spots
Duke University: ~1,700 spots

The total estimated freshman spots at these top 10 schools amounts to approximately 15,000–16,000 each year. When you compare this with the 43,000 students in the top 1% of test-takers, it's clear that many highly qualified students are competing for a limited number of spots.

Even if a student is among the top 1% of scorers, they are still facing incredibly stiff competition. The reality is that these schools are not just selecting from top test scorers—they're also considering extracurricular activities, personal essays, recommendations, and other factors. The limited number of available spots at elite colleges means that even those with stellar academic credentials may not secure admission, further highlighting how difficult it is to stand out in such a competitive landscape.

In short, while scoring in the top 1% is an impressive accomplishment, the number of available spots at elite schools is far smaller, underscoring just how competitive the admissions process has become. With so few spots available at top schools and many applicants vying for the same places, a student with a 34 or a superscore must bring something truly great to the table—something that student with a perfect 36 in one sitting may not need to have to be admitted.

Add in International students. Who are usually fullpay. And make up 20-30% of the student population at elite universities.