For many parents looking to give their students the tools to succeed on the SAT or ACT, test prep courses feel like the obvious starting point. The SAT and ACT assess students’ understanding of academic concepts and reward familiarity with common test-taking strategies and so-called “tips and tricks.” Test prep courses are designed to teach exactly these skills. By this logic, they should be effective vehicles for improving scores. In practice, however, this intuition has mostly failed.

Decades of peer-reviewed research and studies from non-profit organizations consistently find that SAT and ACT test-prep courses produce only small average score increases. Reported effects typically fall in the range of approximately 20–30 points on the SAT and about 1 point on the ACT, gains that are modest relative to the total score scales and often similar to improvements observed from simple retesting or increased familiarity with the exams. As a result, the overall empirical conclusion is that test-prep courses have limited impact on average test performance and do not meaningfully change outcomes for the typical student.

While the average effects of test prep courses are unremarkable, especially once one accounts for the modest gains associated with simple retesting, this does not mean that test prep should be dismissed outright. A closer inspection of the data reveals that score improvements, though weak overall, are driven disproportionately by a small subset of students.

The underlying score-change data are not symmetrically distributed. Studies report that score gains from test-prep courses exhibit positive skew, with median improvements smaller than mean gains. This indicates that most students experience little to no score increase, while a relatively small subset achieves substantially larger improvements, pulling the average upward. As a result, the commonly cited mean score gains overstate the typical student experience and mask considerable variation in individual outcomes. Understanding this pattern matters not just academically, but practically, for how test prep should be designed.

To begin, we ask who are the students responsible for the observed test prep effect? At Ivy Tutor, we call them the grinders. Grinders are not merely motivated students. Many students complete optional assignments and take practice tests. Grinders go further. They recognize that effort is wasted unless it results in genuine learning and conceptual understanding. For a glimpse of grinders in action, one need only visit the SAT or ACT subreddits, where students regularly post challenging problems and solicit detailed feedback.

What about the remaining students who might not have fully-realized self-teaching skills? These are the students that typically require a tutor to implement the structure that grinders are able to self-impose. Should the non-grinders still take test prep courses? At Ivy Tutor, the answer is yes, but only as part of a broader plan. Test prep courses are relatively inexpensive compared to one-on-one tutoring and provide a useful foundation. They introduce students to the core concepts, common strategies, and overall structure of the exam. While they rarely teach the finer distinctions that separate high scores from very high scores, they ensure that this basic material does not need to be revisited during individualized tutoring.

Designing Test Prep in Light of the Data

For Ivy Tutor, this understanding directly shaped how our test prep courses were designed. Our one-on-one tutoring students, who typically engage in sustained, individualized instruction over an extended period, improve their SAT scores by an average of roughly 200 points relative to their initial diagnostic baseline. We do not attribute these gains to test-taking strategies alone, nor do we view them as representative of what short-term or group-based instruction can reliably achieve. Rather, they reflect the cumulative effect of long-term engagement with underlying academic concepts, deliberate practice, and continuous feedback. The goal of our course design is therefore not to replicate these tutoring outcomes at scale, but to incorporate the most transferable elements of individualized instruction into a group setting.

One such element is sustained student engagement. Test prep content is often dry, and students struggle to remain attentive when material feels abstract or disconnected from their own experience. In one-on-one tutoring, personalization happens naturally. A tutor can say, “You missed this question, but students who score 650 on this section understand this specific concept,” directly tying the lesson to the student’s goals. That degree of individualization is not possible in a classroom setting, so our courses rely on different mechanisms to create relevance. One particularly effective approach is to imply personal stakes through imaginative scenarios. For example, instead of introducing a trigonometric function in isolation, an instructor might say, “If you don’t understand this function, you’re not surviving the zombie apocalypse,” and then walk students through an intentionally absurd scenario in which the concept becomes necessary for escape or survival. The literal practicality of the example is beside the point. What matters is that the student’s imagination is engaged, the concept acquires narrative weight, and the material no longer feels abstract. By implying “real-world” relevance, even playfully, students are more likely to internalize concepts in ways that closely resemble the learning that occurs during immersive one-on-one tutoring.

As Ivy Tutor continues to develop and study its test prep course model, our aim is to refine a course that can stand on its own rather than merely serve as a gateway to one-on-one tutoring. We do not expect such a course to replicate the roughly 200-point gains observed among our tutoring students, and we view that limitation as both realistic and acceptable. For many students, dramatic score increases are neither necessary nor aligned with their goals. Instead, a well-designed course can provide meaningful improvements, conceptual clarity, and strategic confidence, allowing students to reach outcomes that are appropriate for their aspirations. In this sense, the value of test prep is not in maximizing scores at all costs, but in delivering the right level of support to the right students at the right time.

Bibliography

ACT Inc. (2018). What we know about ACT test preparation. ACT Research Brief.

ACT Inc. (2019). Effectiveness of ACT Online Prep: A randomized controlled trial. ACT Research.

Becker, B. J. (1990). Coaching for the SAT: A review of the methodological issues. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 373–417.

Briggs, D. C. (2001). The effect of admissions test preparation: Evidence from NELS:88. Chance, 14(1), 10–18.

Briggs, D. C. (2009). Preparation for college admission exams. In R. J. Crisp (Ed.), Handbook of college admission counseling (pp. 201–220). National Association for College Admission Counseling.

Briggs, D. C. (2009). Test preparation effects in a national sample: Differences in gain scores for math and reading. Journal of Educational Measurement, 46(2), 131–147.

College Board. (2017). Official SAT practice on Khan Academy: Effectiveness study. College Board Research.

College Board. (2020). Associations between official SAT practice and SAT score gains. College Board Research.

DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1983). Evaluating the effect of coaching on SAT scores. Harvard Educational Review, 53(1), 1–18.

Messick, S., & Jungeblut, A. (1981). Time and method in coaching for the SAT. Educational Testing Service.

National Association for College Admission Counseling. (2009). Report of the commission on the use of standardized tests in undergraduate admission. NACAC.

Powers, D. E., & Rock, D. A. (1999). Effects of coaching on SAT I scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(2), 93–118.

]]> https://ivytutor.com/sat-reading-strategies/ Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:08:49 +0000 https://ivytutor.com/?p=6444 One of the benefits of being part of the broader test prep community is that I am able to exchange ideas with thought leaders in the field. Perhaps the hottest and most divisive topic right now concerns SAT Reading Strategies. There is a fundamental divide between philosophies that shapes how tutors train their students to read SAT paragraphs.

On one side stands the holistic camp: readers who treat the passage as a coherent piece of writing to be understood on its own terms, trusting comprehension and context to guide them. On the other stands the reductionistic camp: technicians who approach the test like an algorithmic puzzle, scanning for keywords, clues, and evidence patterns to zero in on the single correct answer. Both methods have their logic, but it’s first important to more clearly understand the central challenge.

Why the Fuss Over SAT Reading Strategies?

SAT Reading prompts, though only a paragraph long, are deliberately dense. They’re designed to tax a reader’s working memory and processing bandwidth. Here’s a representative example:

“Philosophers have long asked whether people can truly be responsible for what they do if they couldn’t have acted otherwise. If our choices are shaped by things like genetics, upbringing, or circumstance, is it fair to hold us accountable? The philosopher P.F. Strawson offered a different way to think about this. He argued that our practices of praise and blame don’t depend on abstract theories of free will, but on the emotional attitudes that shape our relationships. On his view, holding someone responsible isn’t about claiming they stand outside cause and effect—it’s about recognizing them as part of the moral community, as someone whose actions naturally call for reactions like resentment, gratitude, or forgiveness.”

At first glance, this passage seems straightforward. But as the reader continues, it demands simultaneous tracking of multiple abstract constructs, logical relations, and referential links across sentences. For most people—even those with strong verbal skills—this quickly exceeds what working memory can comfortably maintain as a single structure. This is precisely what the SAT exploits: it compresses conceptual density into short text, forcing test takers to engage in active meaning construction rather than passive reading.

For tutors, the instructional goal is to teach students how to distill such passages. Distillation means simplifying dense material into its relevant propositions, and there are two main ways to achieve that: the holistic approach and the reductionist approach.

The Holistic Approach:

The holistic approach involves processing the passage one sentence at a time, focusing on meaning as you go. This is mentally demanding because it requires translating language into abstract representations—what psychologists call semantic encoding—but that effort pays off by freeing up working memory. Humans can only hold a few pieces of information in mind at once, yet we can extend that limit through chunking, the process of grouping small elements into larger, more meaningful units. Reading works the same way. A string of sentences can easily exceed the capacity of our verbal working memory (the “phonological loop”), but if we convert those sentences into ideas or mental images, we reduce cognitive load and make room for new information. By processing each sentence in this way, we build a series of conceptual units and begin to map how they relate to one another.

This is likely the kind of reading the test’s designers intended to measure. The mental operations involved are numerous and interdependent: attention control, working memory management, inference-making, and conceptual integration. Together, they provide a strong test not only of reading ability but of organized thinking itself. From a tutor’s perspective, this can be particularly rewarding to teach. Many high school students haven’t yet developed strong metacognitive awareness—the ability to monitor and refine their own understanding. Unlike adults, who must routinely parse fine print or complex instructions, students rarely feel the consequences of shallow comprehension. With deliberate guidance, though, they can learn to read more reflectively, transforming their approach from word-by-word decoding to active, concept-based reasoning.

The Reductionist Approach:

The reductionist approach works from the opposite direction. Instead of constructing meaning across the entire passage, it begins with the question and targets only the parts of the passage needed to answer it. This method effectively bypasses integrative comprehension—the process of building a coherent mental model—and instead relies on selective attention and working memory coordination to keep the question in mind while scanning for relevant cues.

Because most questions target specific claims, inferences, or ideas, readers can often locate relevant information by scanning for “signposts”—keywords, contrasts, causal connectives, or transitional phrases—without reconstructing the full argument. The cognitive logic is sound: one can reduce cognitive load by filtering out information that does not directly serve the goal.

However, while the reductionist strategy appears efficient, it depends on high-level pattern recognition, attentional control, and processing speed. Effective practitioners are able to rapidly categorize sentence functions—distinguishing claims from elaboration, evidence, or context—and adapt their focus accordingly. Some even reverse the usual reading order, scanning from the end backward, as we observe that later sentences more directly contain answer-relevant material.

Which is better?

It’s impossible to know definitively which of the SAT Reading Strategies is better, but Ivy Tutor has traditionally leaned toward the holistic method, while borrowing principles from the reductionist approach. There are several reasons for this. First, it’s more intuitive to learn. Actively breaking down a dense paragraph is a valuable skill—students instinctively recognize the value of learning how to read complex material at a high level. Second, in our experience, the reductionist approach demands a higher baseline of verbal reasoning and processing speed. It’s accessible mostly to students who already meet that threshold.

Given these reasons, we also favor the holistic approach because it’s unclear which students actually benefit from the reductionist method. Its proponents—often test prep tutors who are themselves verbally gifted—report that they find it easier to focus only on the information necessary to answer the questions. But there’s no evidence that this leads to better performance. Anecdotal claims of “it feels easier for me” should not be mistaken for “it produces better results for me or my students.” Still, students who are curious or motivated to experiment should try both methods; if they genuinely find the reductionist approach less cognitively taxing, they may just perform better with it.

What’s the best first test date for 11th graders to target?

Without hesitation, we recommend the December test—and here’s why:

1) Avoid the May and June Pile-Up 📚

Late spring test dates collide with APs, final exams, and major projects. Students often plan to peak in May or June but get derailed by competing demands. If December reveals they’re still a work in progress, the early spring offers a less pressured window for improvement.

2)  It Provides Insurance🛡️

Most students aim to finish testing by the end of junior year. But the typical first attempt—March or May—comes with risks: illness, injury, burnout, or just a rough testing day. Starting in December gives students a less stressful experience and more breathing room later.

3) Brains Are Still Growing 🧠

Why not start even earlier? Because at 16, students are still developing—cognitively and emotionally. Just six months can dramatically improve their grasp of the material, their time management, and their test-day stamina.

4) Leaves Room for What Matters 🎯

Test prep during sophomore year is a red herring. That time is better spent building a resume through research, internships, passion projects, or leadership roles. There’s no evidence that starting test prep in 10th grade improves final outcomes—and finishing too early often means leaving points on the table.

(By the way, our college advisors can help students identify and pursue the kind of passion projects that actually make a difference.)

Bottom line: For most students, December is the smartest first test date—it strikes the right balance of readiness, flexibility, and focus. We recommend beginning prep before junior year, so students have adequate time to prepare.

As always, we’re here to help families make smart, low-stress decisions about testing and college planning.

Test prep helps push scores higher, and that’s our focus at Ivy Tutor. But understanding the effects of statistical variance on its own helps us answer a critical question: which test gives students more benefit through repeat testing?

Does the College Board’s exam offer the same potential for strategic advantage? Or is the SAT more stable—and less exploitable—than its counterpart? To find out, we need to examine how the SAT’s design stacks up and whether it can be gamed as effectively.

Addressing What We Don’t Know About the SAT

[Note: Skip to the next section if you’re mainly interested in the results and conclusion]

Before the recent switch to the digital format, the SAT was relatively transparent, publishing reliability statistics so that colleges and other stakeholders could better interpret student scores. But with the release of the new digital SAT, the College Board—as of this writing—has not released equivalent data. Still, that doesn’t mean we can’t make informed estimates to run meaningful simulations.

On the previous version of the SAT, the College Board reported a standard error of measurement (SEM) of approximately ±32 points per section, translating to a combined SEM of about ±45 overall. (Note: SEMs are not additive, so this isn’t a simple doubling.) This is a fairly wide range. It implies that a student whose true ability aligns with a 1200 will, about 95% of the time, score somewhere between 1110 and 1290.

With the new digital SAT, which we are attempting to model, the College Board shortened the test substantially, from about three hours to just two. Normally, this kind of reduction would compromise score reliability, since fewer questions amplify the impact of lucky (or unlucky) guesses. However, the test-makers introduced several innovations designed to counteract this effect.

First, they implemented a module-adaptive design. This format eliminates the testing bloat that occurs when students are presented with questions that don’t match their ability: low-performing students are no longer wasting time with high-difficulty questions they’re unlikely to answer correctly, and high-performing students are no longer wasting time with low-difficulty questions they’re sure to answer correctly.

Second, they incorporated a scoring framework known as Item Response Theory (IRT). Unlike traditional scoring models, IRT evaluates a student’s overall performance in the context of response patterns. For instance, a student who struggles with easy questions won’t get full credit for answering a few hard ones correctly, as the model assumes those were lucky guesses. This helps reduce the noise introduced by lucky guesses.

Despite the shorter format, the structural updates give us reasonable confidence in applying the previous test’s reliability to the current one. We believe the College Board aimed to replicate the earlier SEM of approximately ±32 points per section in designing the digital SAT.

The SAT’s Superscore Gain and How it Compares to the ACT’s

With those caveats in mind, let’s look at what our simulations revealed. Estimates show meaningful gains from repeat testing. The table below shows that a student who takes the SAT twice can expect their superscore to improve by about 36 points, and their single-day composite by 26. But a motivated student who takes the test five times can see average gains of 74 points (superscore) and 53 points (composite). That’s not trivial.

Note: The SAT does not use the terms “superscore” and “composite,” but to help draw the comparison, we are applying ACT’s terminology to the SAT.

This improvement curve follows the pattern we observed in Part 1 regarding the ACT. But to make an actual comparison, we need to account for the fact that the two tests use different scoring scales. Fortunately, there’s a straightforward way to standardize the results: convert them into Z-scores, which normalize the data by centering the average at zero and setting the standard deviation to one.

Once we do that, the difference becomes clear: superscoring benefits ACT testers more than SAT testers. It’s worth noting again that the SAT projections are based on estimated reliability figures, so those results should be viewed as approximations.

What this further reveals is that the ACT superscore strategy offers an increasing edge over the SAT when compared to the simulation conducting in Part 1. The difference in standardized (z-score) terms for a hypothetical student who takes both tests 5 times grows to about 0.12, which is equivalent to roughly 0.7 ACT points or 27 SAT points.

Now for those wondering how to interpret a 0.7-point gain on the ACT—given that the ACT only reports scores in whole-number increments—here is what it means: For about 7 out of 10 students who take both tests 5 times, their ACT superscore will land 1 full point higher than the ACT-equivalent of their SAT superscore. The odds are favorable, but also consider that for those 7 students, that single-point increase translates to an advantage of approximately 38 SAT points, the rough equivalent of an ACT point, rather than the expected average increase of 27 points.

Thus, taken as a whole, students will tend to score 1 ACT point or the equivalent of ~30 SAT points higher through repeated testing 5 times and superscoring on the ACT than they would through an equivalent strategy on the SAT. That might not sound dramatic, but it’s meaningful. At the margins, that difference matters. It could mean one or two extra college acceptances or thousands of dollars per year in merit aid. For students willing to sit for the test multiple times, the ACT is the smarter bet.

From the perspective of a motivated student, this is good news. And ACT Inc. is likely counting on sharp analysts to notice the asymmetry and point it out, knowing that students will respond by purchasing more test sittings. We discussed the broken incentive structure in Part 2 of this series.

A Final Word

This analysis is part of our broader mission: putting students in the strongest possible position to succeed. Our primary focus is on building real skills: improving students’ thinking, performance, and confidence. That’s where the most meaningful gains happen.

But success on standardized tests isn’t just about ability. It’s also about understanding how the system works and using that knowledge to a student’s advantage. That’s why we dig into the data at this level of depth. We believe students deserve every possible edge, and it’s our job to make sure they get it.

In theory, any test used for competitive admissions should meet a higher bar for reliability, especially when stakes are high and decisions hinge on small differences of just one point. A 2 or 3 point swing isn’t a rounding error. It’s the difference between admission to a safety school versus a reach school. Under superscoring, this issue intensifies because some students effectively have the opportunity to take multiple attempts, while others may have only one. Yet colleges continue to treat superscores as if they reflect stable academic potential. They do not. Instead, superscores reflect which students had the time, money, and tolerance to keep testing repeatedly, and even then, success isn’t guaranteed. Some students who sit for multiple sittings will see their superscores jump by 5 points, while others may only gain one or two. Thus, the improvement itself is unpredictable, making the reputation strategy just another gamble—one where there is a house that always wins.

Winners and Losers of the “Enhanced ACT” Update

Winner: ACT Inc.

The ACT earns revenue by administering its test, so it has every incentive to maximize the number of sittings per student. The organization recognizes that its test design, combined with its superscore reporting policy, will incentivize students to test repeatedly. Students speak to one another and share the observation: those who invest in multiple sittings significantly increase their competitiveness. But the ACT isn’t waiting for these conversations to happen organically. It’s incentivizing major test prep providers, such as Revolution Prep, to promote multiple sittings by allowing them to resell multi-test packages. For $299, students are encouraged to prepay for four ACT sittings. Revolution Prep explicitly markets the superscore strategy, openly stating in its promotional materials: “Multiple Sittings is the Secret Behind a Top ACT® Score.” The result is straightforward. The ACT, which is owned by a private equity group, generates greater profit and, crucially, launders the message—take our test as many times as possible to get into the best college—through its test prep partners.

Winner: Motivated Students

Students who are willing to take the ACT multiple times now have a clear statistical advantage. The increased variance caused by the test’s shorter sections creates more opportunities for lucky breaks. Superscoring captures these high points while ignoring lower scores. Even two test sittings yield nearly a full point of average improvement, and five sittings can push gains to more than two points. Although each additional sitting provides diminishing returns, the data clearly indicates that more sittings produce better outcomes, particularly at colleges that accept superscores. Unlike the previous version of the ACT, where repeat testing primarily confirmed a student’s existing skill level, the new test rewards persistence by allowing score variability to work in the student’s favor. For high schoolers who approach the ACT strategically, and who have the resources to repeatedly test, this new system offers more than just a second chance. It provides a scalable method for improving scores.

Loser: Typical Students

For the average student—the one who takes the ACT once or twice—the new format quietly stacks the deck against them. Increased score volatility turns a single test day into a roll of the dice. If they land on an off section, there is no buffer to absorb the damage. Unlike their better resourced peers, they are unlikely to sit for five rounds just to collect a few lucky breaks for a superscore. As a result, their scores reflect more randomness than skill, without the benefit of repetition to convert that randomness into upside. Worse still, colleges that rely on superscores may end up rewarding volume over actual ability. This creates a growing divide between students who can afford to play the long game and those who cannot. In this environment, typical students are structurally disadvantaged.

Loser: Colleges & Universities

In theory, colleges should not be at the mercy of test makers competing for market share. They are under no obligation to accept exams that fail to meet basic psychometric standards, and the ACT arguably no longer does. Yet colleges are caught in their own competitive race and often resist policies that might reduce application volume. A school that distances itself from the ACT risks losing motivated applicants and shrinking its pool to just SAT takers, diminishing selectivity. As a result, institutions remain tethered to a test that no longer meets reliability benchmarks. Worse still, they help sustain a system that students and advisors are increasingly learning to exploit, even if unintentionally. The end result is a landscape in which colleges feel forced to rely on a measure they know is gamable and lacks sufficient reliability.

How Colleges Can Push Back: Ditch the Superscore

The problem with superscoring is the inconsistency. Students who can afford or are willing to test five times will significantly outpace their peers. But even if all students played the superscore game, the outcome would still be inequitable. It’s a game: some testers will win big; others will win small. That asymmetry undermines the fairness colleges claim to support. If institutions were serious about leveling the playing field, the simplest solution would be to stop accepting superscores altogether. That wouldn’t eliminate the problem—students can still report their best single-day result, which is itself subject to cherry-picking the best outcomes from a volatile measure—but it would rein in the excesses of the superscore system.

It’s likely that these conversations are already happening behind closed doors. After the test-optional movement, many colleges were able to conduct a natural experiment by comparing students who submitted scores with those who did not. The results were clear: standardized tests outperformed every other admissions metric in predicting college success. Raw GPA contributed little to no additional predictive value. Given that entrance exams remain the only truly objective data point in most applications, colleges may finally be ready to eliminate a major source of noise and bias by dropping ACT superscores.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal opinions, based on publicly available information and analysis. This post does not reflect the views of ACT Inc., Revolution Prep, or any college or university.

ACT has just been updated and with it comes a new opportunity for forward-thinking students. The details of the revision can be found here, but the crucial change is that the sections will be shorter and the Science section is now optional and won’t count toward the total score. While students may appreciate a shorter test with fewer questions, the ACT is creating tremendous potential for students who invest in multiple sittings to achieve higher superscores through an ACT superscore strategy.

What are superscores? They are scores derived from the best sections performances across multiple tests. Thus, if a student scores well on Math during the first test and performs well on Reading and English during a second test (while doing poorly in Math that day), the superscore allows the student to present the best combination of section results. Most colleges evaluate superscores rather than a student’s single best test day. This practice works best when section scores remain relatively consistent, but data released by the ACT show that the shorter section lengths are causing greater variance—sometimes referred to as “noise.” In essence, noise allows for more lucky (or unlucky) bounces.

Variance, Noise, and the Power of Lucky Rolls

The ACT doesn’t prominently publish variance figures, but buried in its technical documentation are the section-specific standard errors of measurement (SEMs) for the redesigned test: about ±2.25 for English, ±1.93 for Math, and a striking ±2.71 for Reading. These figures indicate the range of likely outcomes for a student whose underlying ability remains constant. An SEM of ±2.71 means that a student who performs at a 27 level in Reading will score between 22 and 32 about 95% of the time. That level of volatility is massive. It tells us that even when a student’s actual ability hasn’t changed, their score almost certainly will.

The increased variance in the new ACT can actually work in students’ favor—especially at colleges that accept superscores. Each test sitting becomes a new roll of the dice, and over multiple sittings, students are more likely to encounter a test that plays to their strengths. Superscoring captures the best of these outcomes, making it possible for a student’s final score to exceed their true average—not because they got smarter, but because they played the game often enough to hit a high roll.

Why More Attempts Lead to Higher Superscores

The more times a student takes a test with built-in variance, the more likely they are to outperform their average on at least one section. Let’s consider a motivated student who takes the ACT four times. Statistically, their best score on each section—English, Math, and Reading—will, on average, land 2.36 points above their true ability because over the course of four tests, they almost certainly benefited from some lucky roll.

But here’s the thing: even taking the test a second time provides a meaningful benefit. A student who retests once will typically gain about 1.3 points on their superscore. At the high end of what we typically see, 6 sittings will give a student nearly 3 extra points. That’s non-trivial and for a student applying to multiple colleges is sure to open several doors and possibly tens of thousands in merit scholarships.

But what about schools that don’t superscore? Roughly 15% of competitive universities don’t superscore. They only accept a student’s single best test day. Even here, however, the ACT’s reported standard error of about ±1.34 points means that repeat testers can still benefit. On average, it takes three sittings to improve a composite score by more than one point—still worthwhile, but less dramatic than the superscore advantage.

Below is a table showing how much a student’s score can improve based on the number of tests taken.

Why the Real Superscore Effect Is Probably Even Bigger

The standard error of measurement (SEM) figures we used in our simulation come from ACT Inc.’s official documentation. But there’s no indication these were derived from students taking the test more than once. If ACT had tested the same students across multiple days—under real-world conditions with all the usual fluctuations—then the published SEMs would already reflect that noise from sleep, anxiety, test-day distractions, and more.

Instead, ACT Inc. appears to have relied on statistical shortcuts like split-half reliability or Cronbach’s alpha. These methods estimate error from a single test sitting and don’t capture the day-to-day variability in mood and alertness.

That means the error we modeled, based on ACT’s published SEMs, likely understates the real noise students face across sittings. And that, in turn, means the superscore gains in our analysis are probably smaller than what students will see in practice.

A Final Word

This analysis is part of our broader mission: putting students in the strongest possible position to succeed. Our primary focus is on building real skill—improving students’ thinking, performance, and confidence. That’s where the most meaningful gains happen.

But success on standardized tests isn’t just about ability. It’s also about understanding how the system works and using that knowledge to a student’s advantage. That’s why we dig into the data at this level of depth. We believe students deserve every possible edge, and it’s our job to make sure they get it.

In Part 2 of this series, we consider the implications of this higher variance ACT. In Part 3, we compare it to the SAT which provides its own superscore boost.

Methodology

To model the expected benefit of superscoring under the redesigned ACT, we simulated students taking the test multiple times with no change in underlying ability. We based our simulations on section-specific standard error of measurement (SEM) values reported in ACT Inc.’s own technical documentation for the enhanced test forms. Averaging across forms, we used the following SEMs:

• English: ±2.25

• Math: ±1.93

• Reading: ±2.71

Assuming independence across sections (as ACT’s scoring model does), this translates to a composite SEM of approximately ±1.34.

For each simulation, we generated 100,000 students who took the test between one and eight times. On each sitting, each student’s section score was drawn from a normal distribution centered at zero (representing their “true” ability) with the appropriate SEM applied to introduce realistic noise. We then calculated two outcomes:

1. Composite Gain: The best single composite score achieved across all sittings.

2. Superscore Gain: The composite formed by averaging each student’s highest score on each section, regardless of when those scores occurred.

The results show how repeated testing — even without additional preparation — can lead to meaningful score increases simply by exploiting the statistical noise built into the exam. Our modeling also demonstrates how superscoring amplifies these gains, making repeat testing a highly effective strategy at schools that accept superscores.

These seven questions are designed to cut through the marketing and get to the heart of what matters: the quality of instruction, the integrity of the approach, and whether the tutor actually knows how to help your student improve. You don’t need to know everything about the SAT or ACT to ask the right questions—you just need to know which answers signal competence, experience, and honesty.

Here’s the questions to ask a test prep tutor before signing on.

1. What is your approach to test prep tutoring? 

This should always be your first question. Every company may be preparing students for the same test, but their philosophies can differ dramatically. You may not know the “right” answer going in—but you’ll recognize conviction when you hear it. A strong tutor has thought deeply about their approach. They can articulate not just what they do, but why they do it that way. And while it’s possible to be confident and passionate and still be wrong, the truth is: bad tutors rarely sound like they’ve wrestled with this question at all.

2. What is the average improvement your students exhibit?

On the surface, this feels like the most important question—and in theory, it is. But it’s more complicated than it seems. First, companies differ in how they measure improvement. Some use formal diagnostics; others rely on PSAT scores or student-reported baselines, which can skew results. Second, the starting point matters. A company whose students average a 1450 will naturally show smaller gains than one working with students in the 1100s. So don’t just ask what the gains are—ask how they’re tracked, and who they’re coming from.

3. Who will be working with my student, and what are their credentials?

This is one of the most overlooked questions. It’s easy to browse a website, see a few friendly bios, and assume everyone is equally qualified. But what’s often missing is any real transparency about tutor experience—or how the company actually hires. Don’t get distracted by degrees or name-brand résumés alone. Ask how tutors are selected, trained, and evaluated. Some companies keep prices low by hiring the first competent applicant. Others charge more because they’re deliberately selective—choosing only those who meet a far higher bar.

4. How do you decide what content to cover with each student?

This seemingly simple question reveals a major philosophical divide. Does the company walk every student through the entire test, or do they zero in on the specific concepts holding your student back? Fixed curricula aren’t necessarily bad—but they often signal a one-size-fits-all approach. Companies that rely heavily on standardized content may not fully trust their tutors to diagnose and adapt. The result? Wasted time. A thoughtful, diagnostic-driven approach is not only more efficient—it’s far more effective.

5. What’s your philosophy on test-taking strategy vs. content mastery?

This question gets to the heart of how a tutor thinks—and yes, there is a right answer. The best tutors lead with content mastery. They help students truly understand the math, reading, and writing concepts behind the test, and then layer in strategy to improve efficiency and confidence. Tricks and shortcuts can offer quick wins, but they won’t carry a student to their full potential. Real improvement comes from real understanding.

6. How do you determine how many sessions my student will need?

This question reveals more about a company’s integrity than its expertise. In any learning process, most gains come early—then progress naturally slows. A trustworthy tutor will recognize this, adjust pacing, and even recommend pausing if your student hits a plateau. Be wary of anyone who insists on a fixed number of sessions without understanding your student’s goals or baseline. This question helps you spot whether a company is truly student-centered—or just focused on billable hours.

7. How do you support students between sessions?

Tutoring isn’t just what happens during the hour—it’s also what students do with that hour afterward. Ask how the tutor reinforces lessons, assigns and reviews homework, and remains accessible for quick questions or motivation in between sessions. Some tutors provide ongoing check-ins, customized homework plans, or feedback loops; others disappear until the next appointment. This question helps you distinguish between passive session-based tutors and those who take ownership of the entire learning arc.

Choosing a test prep solution is about more than finding someone who knows the material—it’s about finding someone who knows how to teach it, how to adapt, and how to genuinely move the needle for your student. These seven questions aren’t just a checklist; they’re a filter. Ask them, and you’ll quickly separate the polished sales pitches from the providers who actually deliver. The right tutor won’t just answer these questions—they’ll appreciate that you asked.

A 30-point difference might not seem like much on paper. After all, it’s just a few more correct answers per section. But when we take a step back, that small edge compounds over time. To illustrate this, let’s compare two hypothetical tutors: Tutor A and Tutor B.

A Tale of Two Tutors

Tutor A Score Improvements: 230, 120, 260, 100, 210, 310, 120, 150, 190, 150, 90, 180, 120, 210, 120

Tutor B Score Improvements: 300, 160, 180, 250, 130, 220, 280, 110, 210, 220, 250, 130, 120, 230, 220

Can you spot the difference?

Tutor A (them) achieves an average 170-point improvement—a solid result that any reputable tutor would be proud of, with satisfied students and a good reputation. Tutor B (us) helps students improve by an average of 200 points—just 30 points more, yet that small edge has fueled the shared success of Ivy Tutor and our students. Here’s how.

Instead of focusing on the numbers alone, consider experience of the students and parents. Most students of Tutor A are satisfied customers. They have no idea that their tutor didn’t get them to a better destination, but they are happy with their improvements. Similarly, most students of Tutor B are satisfied customers. They have no idea that their tutor actually outperformed the alternative. So why does Tutor B grow? Even though Tutor B’s students improve about 17% more than Tutor A’s, Tutor B sees more major success stories: Twice as many students will have score improvements of 250 points or greater and they will have far fewer duds. The result, Tutor B will have more students achieving life-changing score jumps and more parents raving about the results.

• More word-of-mouth referrals from ecstatic families.
• More students with top-percentile scores, making their results stand out.
• Fewer quietly disappointed clients who expected a bigger score boost.

How 30 Points SAT Score Improvement Can Change Transform Futures

A 30-point difference doesn’t just improve a student’s test score—it changes their college trajectory. Roughly 500 colleges nationwide do more than verify competence; they actively screen for excellence. With GPA inflation making academic records less reliable, SAT scores serve as a crucial differentiator. Each 10-point increase may seem minor, but even small gains can significantly expand a student’s college options. For a student competitive at the 250th-ranked school (by average SAT), a 30-point improvement will unlock roughly 50 additional colleges. Beyond admissions, those extra points can also secure significant merit aid. At schools that publish scholarship cutoffs, 30 more points could mean over $10,000 in financial awards over four years.

To be clear, this isn’t just about points. It’s an investment in a student’s future. Every point gained isn’t just a number; it’s a gateway to better opportunities, greater financial support, and the confidence of reaching full potential.

An Honest Signal: Ivy Tutor Has Been Growing for a Reason

When parents consistently hear about how their friends’ kids jumped 200+ points, demand increases. When a school guidance counselor sees Ivy Tutor’s name associated with one success story after another, they start recommending us more often. As this reputation builds, we have to expand. More students seek us out, our waitlist grows, and we get to bring in and train more incredible tutors to scale what we do best.

That’s the real power of a 30-point edge. It’s not just about numbers on a score report—it’s about momentum, trust, and reputation. Over time, that difference compounds into a team that’s both thriving and constantly improving.

So, what’s 30 points actually worth? It turns out, it’s worth more than you’d think.

Learning and growing have always been central to Ivy Tutor’s ethos, and we’re constantly seeking new ways to elevate our game. That’s why we’re proud to announce new tools and services to enhance what is already a fun (and effective!) test prep process.

• 📊Student Tracking Database: We’re excited to introduce a powerful new tracking system that ensures everyone stays on the same page. This tool will provide clear updates on test dates, progress tracking, assignments, and more—making the process smoother for students and parents alike.
• 🧠 Enhanced Diagnostic Intake: We’re leveraging our experience with the MindPrint cognitive assessment to better target our tutoring. Enhancing our process allows us to more effectively tailor tutoring toward students’ strengths and away from their challenges, enabling us to create even more personalized and effective learning plans.
• 👩‍🏫Impressive New Talent: After an extensive search across the metro area for top talent, we’re nearing the final stages of hiring our newest tutor, who will make house calls in New York and Jersey City. We’re excited about the finalists and can’t wait to introduce our newest team member soon. Stay tuned for the announcement!
• 🏫School Partnerships: Ivy Tutor is proud to launch group classes in collaboration with select high schools. These partnerships enable us to refine our methods and expand our strategies. Looking ahead, we aim to offer these courses to the public starting next year.
• 📦 Flexible Tutoring Plans: We’ve restructured our packages to provide predictability for students, families, and tutors. These packages offer structure, value, and convenience, while still allowing families the option to continue on an hourly basis. It’s the perfect balance of flexibility and planning to meet everyone’s needs.

These improvements build on some of the great things we already do:

1. Free and Unlimited Practice Tests: Students can hone their new skills and abilities each week, and parents can observe their process.
2. Scientifically Informed Instruction: Ivy Tutor does what works. We’re never doing “busy work” or wasting time. Our methods are so effective because they are informed and validated by scientific research.
3. Dynamic and Inspiring Instruction: We instill awe and wonder in our students regardless of the subject matter.

We’re so excited about what’s ahead for 2025! Over a thousand students have already seen the difference our passion brings, and we’re committed to finding even more ways to help students excel.

How We’re Hiring Exceptional Tutors

Step 1: We Create a Compelling Job Listing

Before we post a job listing, we conduct a thorough survey of the current tutor market, specifically investigating the going rates. Our listings start by matching the higher rates currently offered. Our aim is to attract and retain the best talent by recognizing their worth. We understand that a lower rate might attract some of the same winning applicants, but it’s crucial to us that we pay our tutors what they deserve. Besides compensation, we also communicate our passion, vision, and mission in the listing, appealing to applicants who are looking to be part of something greater than themselves.

Step 2: We Review Over 100 Qualified Applicants

Given the appeal of our job listing, we receive over 100 qualified applications. Applicants are considered qualified if they can certify that they scored at least 1450 on the SAT or an equivalent score on a comparable test. From those whose resumes qualify, we seek evidence of academic excellence, teaching experience, or any other attributes that might indicate they are uniquely suited for the role. However, we remain open-minded, recognizing that some of the best tutors may not look perfect on paper.

Step 3: We Speak on the Phone with Nearly Two Dozen Candidates

After narrowing down our pool, we conduct phone interviews with about 20 promising candidates. These calls focus on assessing two key qualities: strength of communication and depth of thought. We invite candidates to share insights from their tutoring experiences or to respond to complex questions. This step often reveals significant differences between candidates who appear similar on paper and ensures that only the most thoughtful applicants move forward.

Step 4: We Further Scrutinize the Phone Interview Standouts

From the phone screenings, we select 3 to 5 standout applicants for virtual interviews. This stage allows for a deeper exploration of each candidate’s potential compatibility with Ivy Tutor. We delve into their thought processes, insights, and let them ask questions about our Ivy Tutor. Candidates are also asked to teach us something, so they may showcase their ability to explain concepts clearly and intuitively. A tentative candidate is selected from this field.

Step 5: We Vet Our Selection

The top candidate is then invited to an in-person meeting over lunch, which serves as both a final assessment and a verification of their professional suitability. This stage confirms our observations from previous interactions and provides candidates a chance to demonstrate their in-person professionalism. If we are confident in a candidate’s abilities and fit, we extend a formal job offer. Otherwise, we request an in-person interview with another finalist.

Step 6: We Impart Our Insights and Time-Tested Wisdom

Once hired, our tutors undergo a training period, though we do not prescribe specific teaching methods. Instead, we share the ethos, philosophies, and insights we’ve accumulated over many years. As we explain, ‘We’re not here to tell you what to do. Rather, we want to share our approach and the reasoning behind it, so you are equally convinced of why this is the best approach.’ In this way, we aim to equip the tutor—who has already revealed themselves to be gifted—with the wisdom needed to achieve the level of effectiveness expected of an Ivy Tutor, marrying their natural communicative gifts with our proven tutoring approach.

What This All Means for YOU

As you can tell, we take hiring seriously. Sometimes, parents compare our prices to those of competitors, many of whom pay their tutors near the minimum wage. They might think, “How hard can it be to teach a few tips and tricks?” It’s an understandable question—how could inquiring parents know how much we invest into producing our results? But the proof is in the pudding. Our commitment to securing top talent and employing thoughtfully developed methods has led to an average improvement of 200 points on the SAT (or ACT equivalent). That’s no small feat, and it wouldn’t be possible if we cut corners on the caliber of our tutors.