<p>Here is the story, I am a senior this year and I just met up with an old friend today and he told me that he only scored a 26 on the ACT this summer after a third time. He is smart with a 4.0 GPA combined with two AP courses. I scored a 27 on the other hand. I just don't get it, some people who are so called "punks" in high schools with a bad GPA can score a 31. WHY???? Do you think that it is kinda unfair for people who studied hours and hours to prep for this thing.........What is your experience?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfair? Yeah, but that’s life. </p>
<p>Some people are prettier than others, some are better athletes, some are healthier, some have better social skills. And some people are more intelligent.</p>
<p>Yeah it sucks when the people who don’t try in highschool get good scores on these tests. its really annoying</p>
<p>I went in with no preparation and got a 33 composite, while my friend the 4.0 student got a 25. Its a crap shoot.</p>
<p>I see what you are getting at though I don’t see the point in saying the ACT is “%!#@”.</p>
<p>Some people are good test takers and some aren’t. It’s the sad truth</p>
<p>I got a 31 the first time I took it without prep and I’m a 4.0 student. Honestly, I think GPA is “%!#@”. Grades depend on your school, your classes, your teachers, your motivation, and only a little bit on intelligence. ACT, on the other hand, is an equalizer, it only depends on your intelligence and how much you study, so I think the ACT is actually more fair.</p>
<p>I agree with maddie, honestly. I’ve taken both the ACT and SAT, and from my experience I feel the ACT is more fair than the SAT. Taking the SAT I felt the emphasis was mostly on test-taking skills (which I hated), whereas the ACT is more oriented to actual knowledge of the material.</p>
<p>I agree with the 2 Broski’s above me. The ACT is not a worthless test.</p>
<p>I agree with the 3 Broski’s above me</p>
<p>I got a 30 on ACT without studying, and i only got a 1800 on SAT with months of prep. If anything you should rejoice for ACT. It requires actual knowledge, not “street smarts.”</p>
<p>" I think GPA is “%!#@”. Grades depend on your school, your classes, your teachers, your motivation, and only a little bit on intelligence. ACT, on the other hand, is an equalizer, it only depends on your intelligence and how much you study"</p>
<p>-I don’t see why one would character GPA as %!#@. Yes you can’t compare it from school-to-school, but colleges know better. They get detailed reports from guidance on what is a good GPA, how it’s calculated, etc. Moreover, motivation is as good a quality as intelligence. Why should a college want a lazy kid who aces one test?</p>
<p>And to say that the ACT only depends on intelligence/studying is a bit extreme. Some people are better test-takers than others (yes, this is less so than on the SAT, but it’s still crucial). Plus, on any given test, some passages/sections will be suited for particular students.</p>
<p>I’m not anti-ACT, I got a 35, but I realize that it involves a bit of luck sometimes. Some might consistently get 35s,36s, but i think they’re the minority. My science score was basically a fluke, and I was familiar with some of the topics in the reading passages, just by chance.</p>