View Full Version : my ACT score

04-13-2004, 12:10 PM
i got it today. a 27! not bad for my first time taking it. i thought i would share my excitement with the world.

04-13-2004, 12:55 PM
Nice job, thats a good score. Just to dampen your spirits though, I got a 32 and a 2.67 GPA my first semester of college.

04-13-2004, 07:04 PM
good work man, i dont get mine back for a few more weeks, where you lookin at goin to school, subquestion, will you play tennis there?

04-13-2004, 08:52 PM
i plan on going to university of louisiana at monroe for pharmacy shcool. they dont have a mens tennis team, i dont think. but, ill take my "pre-pharmacy" courses at LSU-alexandria for 2 yrs. now, they just made that a 4 yr. college, and i hear they are starting up a tennis team. soooooo, ill definently try there.

04-14-2004, 03:19 PM
just got mine man, i also pulled a 27, congrats again

04-14-2004, 06:04 PM
Congrats... exciting, wonder what my CAHEE score is haha California High School Exit Exam.

04-14-2004, 08:14 PM
I just got an 1190 on my SAT...im happy with it, the #1 girl in my class got that and I am like #100+. I am hoping to go to some college/university on a full tennis scholarship *fingers crossed*

04-15-2004, 05:57 AM
cool kevin, but i dotn speak the language of the SAT. what's the ACT equivalent to a 1190 on the SAT? congrats to you too ace.

04-15-2004, 01:26 PM
Kevin6447, what is your ranking on the USTA?

04-15-2004, 02:20 PM
i got it today. a 27! not bad for my first time taking it. i thought i would share my excitement with the world. How old are you? About a year and 2 months ago, I was 13, and I took it for some gifted/talented program and scored a 22 overall, 28 in math, and 26 in science. I think I got around 15 in English, so that's what brought my score way down.

04-15-2004, 02:21 PM
cool kevin, but i dotn speak the language of the SAT. what's the ACT equivalent to a 1190 on the SAT? congrats to you too ace.Well it's out of 1600 I believe, so doing the math its about equivalent to a 27 after rounding up.

04-15-2004, 03:10 PM
Wow that sounds really complicated :?

The English system is rubbish but the American one sounds solid if I could understand the meaning, I am 15 and in my SAT I got:

English 6
Science 6
Maths 6

So as you can see the are very different, well done guys, the American system obviously works better than the British one, Thats why English people are thick :D

So congrats. :D


04-15-2004, 06:23 PM
im only a sophomore. so, figure out my age.

04-15-2004, 08:16 PM
I hear of so many sophomores taking the ACT/SAT's (you being one of them) why? I'm a sophomore and my school doesn't have us take them first time till fall of junior year? I woulda taken em at my old school, but i moved :(

04-15-2004, 09:43 PM
can any of you compare the act with the sat? I got a 1350 and am wondering if I should even bother with the act.

04-16-2004, 06:32 AM
i dont know much about the SAT, but from what ive learnred from this thread that sounds like a really good score. i wouldnt bother with the ACT if i were you.

Steve Huff
04-16-2004, 05:06 PM
Some colleges require it. So, unless you know where you're going, and know they don't require it, I'd take it.

04-16-2004, 08:45 PM
1350 is ok, depending on where you want to go. If you want to go Ivy, or top tier, it might not get you in. If you want to goto a state school, you may be eligible for a scholarship with it. As for score equivalents, a 26 is about an 1180, a 32 about a 1420-1450.

Take the ACT. you might do better on in than the SAT because they test differently, and a majority of colleges will take the higher of the 2 scores.

I took each once and got a 31 or 32 on the ACT, and it got me into a few ivy's and NYU. 26 is not bad at all though(national average is usually between 19-21)

04-16-2004, 08:49 PM
Is it a regional thing? Up in the northeast, it's only the SAT's.

04-16-2004, 09:27 PM
down south nobobdy takes the SAT

04-18-2004, 12:20 AM
I think SAT is a bit more widely accepted than ACT. Mostly I applied to state schools and only needed SAT. Some IVYs require both, i guess.

I think ACT is actually a better test. It tests on more fileds, a bit more generalized. I think SAT is a bit ridiculous, in a sense that its math is pretty easy, but verbal is ridiculously hard.

04-18-2004, 01:47 AM
can any of you compare the act with the sat? I got a 1350 and am wondering if I should even bother with the act.

it depends on where you want to go.

those are a dime a dozen it seemed for people aiming for ucla/berkeley/ or better.

04-18-2004, 07:17 AM
No IVY's require both. You may be able to provide either at Harvard, but most require SAT's. Harvard has been moving away from standardized testing.

04-18-2004, 07:36 AM
those scores are horrible. I got a 1520 on the SAT and I don't even half to talk about my ACT since it was so amazing. I will see you at an IVY League.

04-18-2004, 03:20 PM
those scores are horrible. I got a 1520 on the SAT and I don't even half to talk about my ACT since it was so amazing. I will see you at an IVY League.

your 1520 doesn't make up for the fact that you're still a virgin :lol:

04-18-2004, 03:52 PM
those scores are horrible. I got a 1520 on the SAT and I don't even half to talk about my ACT since it was so amazing. I will see you at an IVY League.

your 1520 doesn't make up for the fact that you're still a virgin :lol:

your sh** talking doesn't make up for your half-inch coc*

04-18-2004, 05:16 PM
If your scores are that grand.... why do you say...

"I dont HALF to talk..."

when anyone with any 4th grade english would know that it is HAVE....

dont rip on people when you dont seem all that bright either.

04-18-2004, 05:46 PM
i was in a hurry. It doesn't matter. You are not a english teacher. I was just trying to make a point. I don't waste time looking over something that doesn't matter at all.

04-18-2004, 07:54 PM

And your 'point' is...?...?

Let's see:

Some people take tests better than other people.

The monopoly of test taking over the process of education is lowering the standards for everyone.

That high school is all about social conditioning and is pointless as far as education goes; one day very soon (perhaps already) the whole system will be subsumed into three hierachical levels: preppy pre-club, community colleges, and warehouse.

Probably not those points. O well, my bad.

04-18-2004, 08:08 PM
I got a 30 on my first and only time. 32's in math, science, and spacial reasoning, or whatever the other thing is. Then a 25 or 26 in reading. Heh..oh well. Good enough for my full ride to University of Michigan :-) No tennis for me there though...:-(

Joe Average
04-18-2004, 10:43 PM
The Ivies will take the ACT's only if SAT scores are not available. But SAT's are pretty much required. Now, the party line, in Ivy League admissions, is that grades are more important than SAT scores. When half the applicants to Harvard get 1400 or more, and one out twenty is admitted, basing admission on SAT scores wouldn't work. Admissions people will say that SAT scores "confirm" what they can gauge from the rest of the application. And the best indicators of future success are grades. Someone with high scores and low grades is considered academically lazy.

04-19-2004, 01:13 AM
those scores are horrible. I got a 1520 on the SAT and I don't even half to talk about my ACT since it was so amazing. I will see you at an IVY League.

your 1520 doesn't make up for the fact that you're still a virgin :lol:

your sh** talking doesn't make up for your half-inch coc*

you were the one dropping numbers buddy! haha

btw, the L and V keys on your keyboard aren't close enough to warrant such a dumbass mistake. not that it matters... because you're destined for big things!

happy hazing buddy!

04-19-2004, 05:51 PM
ibemadskillz, you sure do say alot of stupid stuff. i really enjoyed that post saying that anyone can be a number one player if they played with the PD, inlcuding yourself. unfortunately, you dont like tweener racquets. damn the bad luck.

04-19-2004, 06:14 PM
Joe - You're a little naive. Scores and grades are only part of the equation for entrance to Haa-vaad. Sports and extra cirricular activities help, but there are literally 1,000's of kids who have the "goods" for Harvard. What tips the balance in their favor is:

-Family connections (a name like Bush or Kennedy or some other luminary)
-Being a member of a "minority"
-Being a non-US citizen
-Having a relative who attended Harvard-in Animal House terms, a "Legacy"

If you don't fall into any of those categories, your chances are greatly diminished. My cousin is graduating this year-1550 SAT, class valedictorian, a 4.8 (yes, 4.8 out of 4.0) GPA-the extra coming from AP courses-also, baseball team, student government, a science internship at a prestigious research institute, etc. In short, he's a STUD. Harvard rejected him faster than you could wink an eye. He doesn't fall into any of the above categories. He got into to Princeton, Yale, Brown, Duke, Penn, Stanford and Berkeley. Go figure. Sc*ew Harvard-they let George W. Bush into the MBA program with a C undergrad grade average. He obviously fits their profile.

Joe Average
04-19-2004, 07:26 PM
Well, Phil, I may be naive, but I did work at an admissions office of an Ivy League college (in NYC) for nine years -- the 1980s and 90s. And, re-reading what I wrote, I never suggested that grades were the only thing. I wrote that grades (and class rank) were more important than SAT scores. Which you don't seem to be contradicting. And I think that there are actually more Asians at Harvard than blacks and Hispanics. And Asians aren't even included in affirmative action (nor Hispanics of Cuban descent). You've left off your list geographic distribution. It's actually "easier" for a kid from Wyoming or South Dakota to get into Harvard than some kid who went an elite prep school in New England who finished in the middle of his class. Even though the kid from Wyoming tested lower. Back in the late 1970s, the admissions director at Brown, which then was the doormat of the Ivy League, decided to go after "neat kids" because the geniuses were going to the big three (Harvard, Yale, Princeton). So, they took kids who may not have scored well ... may not have been the valedictorian ... but would contribute to a nice atmosphere on campus. Guess what? Brown's applicants shot up. And, eventually, kids were turning down Harvard to go to Brown. So, my point was ... as I wrote ... scores aren't everything.

Also ... when you're admitting kids, generally, it's not "Okay, we're going to admit him, but not her." An applicant is judged on his or her own merits ... not relative to another applicant. An admissions officer isn't given a stack of folders and told to recommend admission to 10 out of 200 applicant. The end result may be that legacies or Native Americans or kids from Wyoming have an easier time getting into Harvard than suburban high school kids from Connecticut, but it's not directly an either or situation.

04-19-2004, 08:02 PM
Joe - I didn't say affirmative action, I said "member of a minority" which, in the US would still include Asians. Yes, I forgot about geographic distribution in the Ivies quest to field a completely diverse native and international student body. And my cousin, as an example, does attend a suburban public school located in an East Coast metropolitan region. So his "shortcoming" I suppose, is that he wasn't born and raised in the boondocks (where smaller schools and school districts mean less competitive students). Oh well, Harvard's loss is Yale or Stanford's gain.

04-19-2004, 09:45 PM
I think Harvard is mainly about family connection..Other ivys are probably not as bad as harvard.
Another important thing to mention is "which high school" did you go to. A student who attended philips, choate rose-mary hall and other private high schools in east coast will have higher chance to get in.

Pretty much, these schools are looking for very intelligent, motivated, strong leadership, athletic etc etc students in general.

Most universities will require international students to submit a household income, or the person who's going to support you, and how much money will be granted to you. This is a deciding factor, i think. Most scholarship or financial aid programs are not availiable to internationals, at least in state-funded schools. Private schools will probably grant more scholarship to internationals...

04-19-2004, 09:49 PM
after reading joe's post, I seem to be wrong
Joe, I have heard different as well. I know an asain student who went to high school in LA. She was an outstanding student. And an american student with average GPA, SAT score who attended philps academy and got into Harvard.

I have also heard that whether you are in or out depends on the person's mood. If s/he is feeling crappy, the application might find trash can, instead of an folder...^_^

04-19-2004, 10:48 PM
A guy I know (knew, back in 1980) was rejected by Harvard - Private prep school, 4.0, 3 varsity sports, class president and valedictorian - they told him to take a year or so off, find out what life's really about and apply again - I thought that spoke pretty well for Harvard ! ( they guy went to Brown BTW)

Joe Average
04-20-2004, 07:53 AM
I don't want to make excuses for Harvard, but there are reasons for they do what they do. First, there are more foreign students going to school in the Northeast and any other region in the country. They pay their own way (whether family or government). So that's why prep schools love them. So if they do get into Harvard, they're footing the $40,000 bill in annual tuition, room and board. Boston University actually admits many more foreign students than Harvard. And you can be sure that Harvard's percentage of foreign applicants is a lot higher than, let's say, Reed College (a fine school in Oregon)

As for legacies ... because Harvard does symbolize the best in higher education in this country (and the world really) ... they're going to get a lot of legacy applicants. Graduates of Long Island Unversity, let's say, who go on to succeed, don't dream of sending their kids to LIU. At the same time, Harvard graduates want their kids to go to Harvard because of what it represents. There's a lot of lobbying that goes on in admissions. Football, fencing, even tennis coaches are fixtures in the admissions office. Legacies have their lobby group too. College counselors from their prep schools, the alumni relations office and sometimes the development office. So if some kid who went to a suburban public school in Pennsylvania, whose parents graduated from West Bloomfield State, and who plays cello and helps out in the soup kitchen applies, he or she may not have enough to distinguish him or herself (We had one applicant actually write her essay on the panels of a soccer ball. She didn't get in). Good grades and good boards aren't going to do it. Admissions in the elite colleges isn't about meritocracy (high school valedictorians alone probably make up a third of Harvard's applicants). It's closer to being like a social director on a cruise ship.

04-20-2004, 12:26 PM
This is all mildly interesting, but what about the quality of the education? For example, say you wanted to take a class at Harvard taught by the famous Irish poet, Seamus Heaney. The reality is that he will show up for ONE workshop and lecture series all on the same day and meet you for about 5-10 minutes private time, maybe. Now the course purports to be taught by Seamus Heaney, but in reality you will be taught day in and day out by someone else: a low to moderately paid teacher, graduate assistant, etc.

As I see it, what are you paying all that money for— uninformed bragging rites (rights) only perchance? As far as education goes, one would be better served finding the individual(s) one wishes to study with (not just their fame or school they semi-teach at, but what they can offer to what one wishes to accomplish). The professionals at less blue-blood colleges are often just as good as or better than the fraternal elite; they are just harder to find, so it is the individuals responsibility to search them out.

Joe Average
04-20-2004, 12:52 PM
No argument here. I got out of admissions because I realized that a good year for us, an expanded applicant pool, meant more kids to reject. Is that serving education? I think kids, parents, and college counselors are lazy. There are a lot of terrific schools out there, if you do the work to discover them. But 17 year old kids think, "I want the best. So, I'll go to Harvard." It takes more work to discover a Bucknell or a Reed or a Grinnell. All terrific schools. Unfortunately, employers think the same way as these kids. And when they see Harvard on the resume, they salivate. And who's to say which is the best college? It's the best college for you. Should you go to MIT simply because of its reputation? How is their art history department?

Jun, Asians present a peculiar problem for admissions people. They are a minority that is over-represented in some elite colleges (Northeast and in California). UC Berkeley and UCLA are 45% Asian, and about 18% at Harvard. They are not considered affirmative action candidates. Which is too bad, for some. Because a kid whose parents are immigrants, working at a fruit stand, and who did really well at a public school will not necessarily be distinguished from a kid whose parents are doctors living in Scarsdale and who goes to St. Paul's. On paper ... they're both Asian. It's also interesting that as a group, Asians don't often benefit from other admissions criteria ... like athletics, legacy, and geography.

04-20-2004, 01:05 PM
Asians are NOT counted as minorities in the elite college admissions game and haven't been siince the 1970's. That's because, as a group, they actually perform better than their white peers and are not, "disadvantaged." In fact, there is a reverse discrimination going on in some schools, i.e., UC Berkeley, to limit asians as they already make up 35% of each class and would be upwards of 50% if the group was not limited. In the Iyy's, legacies typically account for 32-37% of each incoming class. The Ivy's want to foster generations of loyal contributors to their endowment and sucessful graduates tend to breed sucessful offspring that will continue to contribute to their alma mater. That's the game as it is now played. At least it is better than it once was when 85% of the matriculating class at Harvard went to prep schools vs. 25% today.

04-20-2004, 06:25 PM
I do some work in the NYU undergraduate admissions office, and also went through all the application crap last year, and can tell you that admissions panels are fickle. For instance, a friend of mine was admitted into Brown, yet was waitlisted at NYU. I got into Columbia, UCSD, NYU, and Brown but was rejected from Berkeley(not even waitlisted). Admissions panels are comprised of normal people, and they accept and reject students based on their own personal intuitions as well as the scores, extracurricular activities, etc. I had to help file over 20,000 NYU rejection folders, and some of these kids had really high GPA's and SAT scores.

That said, legacy is a big deal, especially with borderline kids. A friend of mine had marginally good test scores and GPA, and solid extracurriculars, and was waitlisted at Rice. He ended up getting in off the waitlist above another student who had better scores overall. The difference? The one who was accepted has a sister already in the school.

As for the Ivy leagues, they're like a club, once you get in, you're set, as long as you do the work.