Debate: 2400 SAT Score vs 36 ACT Score

<p>The SAT isn't an IQ test, but is more like one than the ACT. The ACT is strictly based on textbook learning while the SAT tests you more on your reasoning, something that can't really be taught. The material on the SAT isn't that hard. The Math section in particular really contains basic algebra, geometry, and trigonometry. It is true that one need to know the basics of these 3 types of Math, but once you do, your reasoning takes over. All the hard questions on the SAT are merely basic Math problems disguised by ambiguous questions with letters being used as numbers (If 2X = 3Y that what does Z equal and stuff like that).</p>

<p>
[quote]
huh? what are you talking about?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i'm saying your previous post was overblown and completely unnecessary you stupid noob.</p>

<p>hey hey. ^__^;; no need for flaming MechRocket.</p>

<p>And hepstar, well if you put it in that sense I guess I can understand your logic ^__^b.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>I was bored. I don't see what your problem is. Maybe you should go outside and get some air to calm down.</p>

<p>noobs (10 chars)</p>

<p>question sir ^__^;;</p>

<p>What's (10 chars) ?</p>

<p>don't worry you'll never have to worry about that mr. smiley noob</p>

<p>don't worry you'll never have to worry about that mr. smiley noob</p>

<p>well considering that these are college entrance exams, i would say testing ones knowledge on core subjects is equally as, if not more important than, knowing ones logical ability. testing what one has learned in high school makes sense when asking the question, will this person be able to perform well in college? true, some schools wont prepare their students as well as others, but the truth of the matter is, if the kid isnt performing well in high school for lack of effort, they wont succeed in college. the act is a good way to test that.</p>

<p>I am very disturbed by the application of the notion of "innate ability" that I sometimes see on CC. I have to wonder: why is it so important to show that you've been <em>born</em> with mental abilities superior to those of your peers? Regardless of whether it is possible to be born with such superiority, what accomplishment does it show? If anything, it shows that you have been given an unfair advantage. In other words, someone with less "innate ability" than you but equal or greater accomplishments (in terms of, say, writing great literature, curing cancer, whatever) actually deserves <em>more</em> credit for those accomplishments since he or she has risen above innate obstacles/limitations.</p>

<p>My opinion: much of the time, the notion of "innate ability" is used to give oneself a sense of security; it means that you don't have to put in as much effort into learning as the next guy, since you were born with more potential, aptitude, etc. In my quite limited experience, the end result is often a distinct <em>lack</em> of effort on the part of the person with the most "innate ability" - causing that person <em>not</em> to live up to the potential she/he was supposedly born with!</p>

<p>It's fine and dandy to debate whether the 2400 SAT or 36 ACT is harder to achieve, but I fear that students who define themselves by whether they have one or the other of these two (admirable) scores may develop a false sense of security and ultimately accomplish less than, say, someone with a 2300 or 2100 or 2000 SAT or 30 ACT. For this reason I think that standardized test scores absolutely should <em>not</em> be taken as measurements of "innate ability" or potential, regardless of whether they actually do measure these qualities. Your true potential and "innate ability" will be determined by what you accomplish over the next few decades of your life.</p>

<p>That's one perspective, Perple... I give up on your name. Another is that by measuring innate ability, it erases the negatives of people stuck at low-quality high schools. Poor inner-city kids are definitely not going to have the same resources after birth as rich suburban preppies. By measuring innate ability, the colleges are able to see what THEY will be able to do with the kids, not what has already been done with them.</p>

<p>Reasonable people can disagree on the topic.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>The forum software requires that your post has a minimum of 10 characters, so some people tack on "(10 chars)" to the end to meet the requirement for very short posts.</p>

<p>I think that a higher score on the SAT is more difficult for the reasons previously stated.</p>

<p>On the other hand, perhaps the poor inner-city kids scored well because they diligently studied the materials available to them. If this is true, then it would be a shame to see the idea of "innate ability" cause one of these high scorers to put in less effort and thereby lose some of the supposedly innate abilities.</p>

<p>In any case, I can agree to disagree on this issue (which is not directly related to the subject of the thread).</p>

<p>Wow Mech...do you say noob in every post. You need to seriously think about going outside and stop playing videogames.</p>

<p>ohh... so that's what 10 chars means XD. mmm I may be a smiley noob... but I'm not a failing smiley noob so I'm good lol. Anyways perlex.. err... i'm not going to try restating his name.. brings up a good point. However, not to be mean or anything but I believe that if someone was able to cure cancer... he or she probably had some sense of innate ability. ^<strong>^;; ... and Honestly, the reason why IQ tests are taken is to separate those that can bring their own inventions, their own strategies, their own ideas to society. err waiit.. that sounds bad.. they're not taken for society >XD. They are taken to show who will be an influence on society and to give those individuals resources that will allow them to utilize that hidden "talent" if you so may call it. However, I don't want this thread to become a "hardwork vs talent" kind of thread. And yes Perplex, what you have observed is indeed true. Many of the students that do have this innate ability do not work as hard. But that is not to say that their accomplishments are less than those that work hard =/ ... Just to give another side to that note. ^</strong>^</p>

<p>10 charrrr</p>

<p>10 charrrrie</p>

<p>10 char taggert</p>

<p>meh rocket fagg</p>