<p>The ACT can be learned just like the SAT. What makes you think otherwise?</p>
<p>As to missing questions on the tests, because of curving you can miss more on the SAT than the ACT and still get a 2400; the ACT does not curve -- to get a 36 on one of the sections of the test you must get all correct but you can end up with a 36 composite by missing a couple because a 35.5 composite is automatically raised to 36. As to whether it is easier to get a 36on the ACT, be aware of two things: (a) a smaller percentage of test takers get a 36 on the ACT than the percentage that get a 2400 on the SAT; (b) for college admissions, majority of colleges take the highest subscores from multiple SAT tests and thus it is possible to have a 2400 for admission for those colleges without getting a 2400 on one test; most colleges consider only the highest score from a single sitting for the ACT (the result is that about 200 applicants a year nationwide have a 36 ACT for admission purposes but close to 3,000 have a 2400 SAT for admission purposes).</p>
<p>Now, as to the question as to whether colleges consider a 2400 better than a 36, the answer is no. Either one is considered the highest possible and they really don't sit around asking the rhetorical question as to which one is better.</p>
<p>"the ACT does not curve -- to get a 36 on one of the sections of the test you must get all correct"</p>
<p>That's not true. You can often miss at least one English and occasionally a math or reading question and still get a 36 for that section.</p>
<p>Clearly, the solution to this debate is to get both a 2400 and a 36. <insert sarcasm=""></insert></p>
<p>Can we assume that we are talking about a 2400 in one sitting rather than a superscore from multiple sittings? Or are we talking about both?</p>
<p>one sitting</p>
<p>i could probably get a 36 on the ACT if i didn't make careless mistakes; it's much harder on the SAT tho cuz of vocab words, which i refuse to memorize. if they should eliminated this section, i could get a full score.</p>
<p>dude u got a 34...how is that close?</p>
<p>
[quote]
dude u got a 34...how is that close?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>who cares? i know the extent of my abilities; i know i can get a 36 if i actually studied a little bit for it and checked over my sections during the test.</p>
<p>i think...
even though the ACT is rounded.
In SAT, atleast in some of the practice books, you can miss like 1 on verbal and make a perfect score.
in the Oct SAT I, in math, you could have missed 1 and still made a perfect score.(my friend did)
while this doesnt happen for every test, i think you can usually get by with missing a small number.</p>
<p>In addition, the SAT grammar section, the essay counts with the multiple choice part. That means someone can miss a few, get a high score on the essay, and make a perfect score.</p>
<p>on ACT, as far as I know, the scores are figured out differently, and that cant happen.</p>
<p>the ACT is straighforward, no tricks. in order to succeed, you must know the material and work under time constraints. in order to succeed on the SAT, you need to know the tricks. i value knowledge over trickery.</p>
<p>coopertemplgrl has a good point. I myself value the speed required to work at the ACT pace, rather than overcoming trickery on the SAT.</p>
<p>I have to disagree. I think that the SAT is a better test. It tests a student's logical thinking, which he/she is born with. The ACT tests you on what you learned in school. Some students go to sub-par schools that do a poor job teaching, therefore are at a big disadvantage when it comes to the ACT. The SAT, although not perfect, lessens this problem because it tests students' inherent ability, which is virtually unaffected by the quality of their education.</p>
<p>Each test is better for someone, but I personally believe that the SAT is a better, fairer test.</p>
<p>i like the SAT better. i think its critical reading passage questions are very well-written.</p>
<p>
mmm Nilkn does have a point. (btw to Mechrocket, a girl from my school got a 2400 also.. >.<;; she's only a junior and skipped a grade ) It would be quite difficult to compare these (I hear an AP Stats project coming on again). Because first off, we'll have to assess the different scores people achieved based off their, nationality, wealth, location etc. ehhh yeah ^__^;;
</p>
<p>Actually, I was thinking from a purely mathematical viewpoint. For example, consider the English test of the ACT. If you guess randomly, then the probability of answering an individual question correctly is 1/4 and the probability of answering it incorrectly is 3/4. The probability of getting N questions correct on the entire test may be computed from the binomial distribution for Bernoulli trials to be</p>
<p>(75 choose N) * (1/4)^N * (3/4)^(75 - N)</p>
<p>where (75 choose N) denotes a binomial coefficient. This is a nonuniform distribution. You then must use the conversion tables to find the probabilities of getting the scale scores.</p>
<p>Repeat this process for each test, and then find how many ways each composite can be made from an average of four test scores in the range [1,36]. With all this information, it should be possible to compute the true probability of getting a certain composite score by guessing randomly on each individual question.</p>
<p>[I'm tired, so I could have made critical mistakes in this post. Beware.]</p>
<p>
[quote]
In SAT, atleast in some of the practice books, you can miss like 1 on verbal and make a perfect score.
in the Oct SAT I, in math, you could have missed 1 and still made a perfect score.(my friend did)
while this doesnt happen for every test, i think you can usually get by with missing a small number.
[/quote]
Same with the ACT.</p>
<p>Well, I believe neither exam, SAT or ACT, tests a person's true intelligence. As for prestige, the "twenty four hundred" sounds a lot better than the "thirty six" from where I live.</p>
<p>nilkin: how about a cup of S-T-F-U?</p>
<p>huh? what are you talking about?</p>
<p>To Hepstar:</p>
<p>Hii ^__^;;
I was actually reading an article somewhere about how the SAT either does or does not test one's innate abilities. However, even the High IQ Society and Mensa (of which I joined) claim that the SAT is nothing compared to an IQ test in measuring one's potential capacity or ability to learn. The thing that makes it incapable of measuring IQ is that the SAT "CAN" in fact be practiced where as IQ tests tend to give scores that actually can't be studied. Although this may bring different responses... I do in fact believe that the SAT does not measure IQ. Sorry for the disagreement =/
I am just honestly stating my opinion and others that I have known from other organizations.</p>