<p>Which on is better? I made like a 2100 on my SAT and I plan to retake, but now I'm looking at the ACT and made a 35 on a practice one I got from the library. Now I'm not sure if I should just focus on the ACT, or practice for both.</p>
<p>I didn't post this in the SAT/ACT forums because I want to know which one is preferred for most colleges or if it doesn't matter.</p>
<p>i dont think any test is more preferred than the other. a 35 is definetely more notable than a 2100, so i would say focus on the act.</p>
<p>Well, except for the fact that SAT is more widely accepted nationwide than ACT,
there is, at least officially, no difference between those two tests.</p>
<p>Tomahawk is wrong. The ACT is now accepted by every major school in the country. There are now almost as many students taking the ACT as the SAT. Most schools will also accept the ACT with Writing in lieu of the SAT and the SAT subject tests.</p>
<p>And if you can score a 35 on the real ACT, it is definitely more impressive than a 2100 on the SAT. I say go for the ACT.</p>
<p>Is a 35 more impressive than a 2290 on the SAT? I got a 35 on an ACT practice test and a 2290 on the SATs. Should I bother taking the ACTs?</p>
<p>Since you're doing incredibly well on both, I would recommend taking both. That just shows that you're a truly skilled test taker. That would be so sick if you got a 36, though. But really, there's virtually no difference b/w a 35 and a 36.</p>
<p>there's the site you need to visit if you want to see how colleges look at ACT/SAT scores and compare them...so 35 is definitely weighed MUCh more than 2100 on the SAT</p>
<p>at most schools it seems the average ACT score is lower than the average SAT score using the conversion tables. It might be that the ACT applicants are from states less represented at the school and get in a little more easily.</p>