Allison had a 31, which is a good score, and she was dejected about it.
English and Reading were strong. Math and Science weren’t, and Science in particular was sitting at a 27 while everything around it was much higher. One section was holding the whole composite down, and she’d been unable to move it.
She also knew something about herself that most students won’t admit: she couldn’t hold herself accountable on her own. Not a motivation problem. A structure problem, and she’d correctly identified it.
She didn’t believe it would work
Allison was skeptical of ACT programs going in. Her words: “I was skeptical in the beginning.”
That’s a fair position. Most test prep is sold on the same promises and a lot of it is a room, a book, and a schedule.
What changed her mind was Carson’s video walking through the plan, because it described something specific to a student’s actual weaknesses rather than a curriculum everyone receives. She described it as sounding very individualized, and that was the thing worth testing.
We’d rather have a skeptical student than an enthusiastic one. The skeptic keeps checking whether it’s working.
Three question types
Science looked like a section-wide problem. It wasn’t.
When we broke down what Allison was actually missing, it came down to roughly three question types. Not the whole section, not a science content gap—three recurring patterns she hadn’t learned to recognize.
That’s the difference targeting makes at this level. A course would have taught her the science section. She needed three things, and everything else on the section she could already do.
An hour a day for six weeks was enough because 90% of the exam was left alone.
The parts she said mattered
Accountability came first. Someone was checking. She’d told us she needed that and she was right.
The community was the one she brought up unprompted—being able to post a question at any hour rather than saving it for a scheduled call, and being able to read what everyone else was asking. A lot of what a student needs to know is something another student already asked.
And the practice tests toward the end. By the last week she’d seen enough full-length tests under real conditions that test day wasn’t a new experience.
The result
Allison scored a 35. English 36, Reading 36, Science 36, Math 32.
Science went from a 27 to a 36.
Her composite and her superscore came out identical, which is unusual—she didn’t need to stitch together best sections across dates, because she scored it all in one sitting.
What Allison’s story shows
There’s a belief that coaching is for students who are behind. Allison was at a 31, ahead of the overwhelming majority of test takers, and she gained four points in six weeks at an hour a day.
At the top of the scale the gains get smaller and the work gets narrower, and the doors those few points open change considerably. A 31 is a strong application. A 35 is a different conversation at every school in the country.
"I was skeptical in the beginning"
— Allison L.
What we did differently
- Isolated science down to about three specific question types rather than treating the whole section as the problem.
- Held her accountable daily, which she'd told us upfront she couldn't do for herself.
- Gave her a community where she could post a question at any hour and also read everyone else's.
- Kept the daily commitment at an hour so it survived a busy schedule.
- Loaded practice tests toward the end of the six weeks to build confidence going into test day.
Coached by
Boosted Brains coaching team
Every Boosted Brains coach has a perfect or near-perfect ACT score and has been personally trained by Carson Weekley (perfect 36) and Martin (Head of Student Success).