<p>What is your opinion on the current grading system? Do you like how if you get a 31.5 it becomes a 32 or would you prefer a the grade equaling the total of all the sections? </p>
<p>Personally I feel as though the latter would be better because it would be harder to get a perfect score and therefore getting a 36 (really a 144) would be a true accomplishment (not that a 34+ isn't already a huge feat)</p>
<p>I would prefer the second way as I got a 32.25 and it would be nice to be able to distinguish myself from all the 31.5s out there</p>
<p>Does anyone know why it is out of 36 to begin with?</p>
<p>It is graded out of 36 because each section is out of 36. This way a person (or college) can easily see the average score you earned on each section.</p>
<p>the colleges see all your scores anyways so they know if you scored a 23.5 or a 24.25. so no there is no need for it to be out of 144, really there is no need for a composite score i think.</p>
<p>For the people who get around the upper 30’s, this would look great on college applications. Yet for others, it’s not so great.</p>
<p>Rounding up is always good. I would guess that only students who scored XX.25 would prefer the latter. It’s almost like a miniature curve.</p>
<p>Eh, doesn’t really matter. There would be very few perfect composite scores if they did this, though.</p>
<p>^Even less than 2400’s? :O</p>
<p>
Well, duh. It’s obvious why the average is out of 36. I’m wondering if anyone knows why they chose 36 as the number for each individual section/composite, versus something simpler, like 100.</p>
<p>I say just leave it. The ACT should not try to be more like the SAT, and the SAT should not try to be more like the ACT. They are different tests!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, there are fewer pure 36’s than 2400’s.</p>