<p>I agree that studying an hour a day for 3 years is a bit over the top. Getting at least a 33/34 is not hard, just be sure you play the time out right. When practicing time yourself to know about how long a question takes you so your prepared in that area. I didn’t study at all the first time I took them and stuggled the most in reading, but I also didn’t even get to the last section of the reading portion.
Many classmates of mine, including myself, recieved a 36 in the math portion, it is very common sense alegbra and geometry. Just be sure to answer the exact question.</p>
<p>What got me in the ACT (I scored a 35) was the science section. There’s too many questions and not enough time to do them all properly. And most of them are *biology<a href=“eww”>/i</a>.</p>
<p>But really, if you prep reasonably, do some practice tests, and understand your mistakes, there’s not too much of a trick to get in the 32-35 range.</p>
<p>Thanks everyone! I have been doing some prep, but not very much, and I am really happy that this many people responded. Hopefully I get somewhere in the 32-35 range, I really doubt I will, but I can always try, right?</p>
<p>So is all the prep books harder than the actual test??</p>
<p>Getting a 36 doesn’t even compare to getting a 2400…</p>
<p>Getting a 36 may be significantly easier than getting a 2400, but that sure doesn’t mean it’s EASY.</p>
<p>how is a 36 easier than a 2400? it seems that they would be about the same difficulty</p>
<p>The SAT questions tend to be deliberately tricky, so even if you know all the material perfectly you will probably get more like 2300. With the ACT, if you know all the material you’re tested on and don’t get nervous, you won’t miss questions.</p>
<p>Uh, a 36 is equivalent to a 2380-2400, and more people have a 2380-2400 then people with 36s. It’s really hard to get.</p>
<p>418 ppl with a 2390+.</p>
<p>680 with a 2380+, so it’s about equivalent to the range 2380-2400 depending on if you got 2 35s or all 36s, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that’s what you call a poorly made test. If someone know everything they should get an easy 2400. But the SAT tests how well you can take tests… Yea, the SAT creators are that stupid I know.</p>
<p>
No.</p>
<p>More people get 2400s than 36s.</p>
<p>^Not true actually, but 36 is a range from four 36s to two 35s and two 36s.</p>
<p>It’s more like a 2380-2400, which makes logical sense. The difference between these scores is relatively meaningless anyway.</p>
<p>I’ve read many times here on CC (check tokenadult’s posts) that the basis for scoring well in either the ACT or SAT is “Read, Read, Read.” The people that have been life long readers have a lot of extra knowledge (self learners, think extensive vocab), can probably read a lot faster and at a higher rate of comprehension, and are able to recognize when things are written well or not without much effort. The ones that cram at the last minute (or year) and do a lot of test prep may improve their scores but hardly ever are able to achieve 2400/36. Do you see this reflected in the scores of the people from your school?</p>
<p>I don’t think the SAT creators are “stupid”. In fact, their test is valued more than the ACT in college admissions because it is challenging. Sorry cjgone, but the ACT is simply an easier test. There are articles showing that the ACT tests material significantly below college material, while high SAT-scorers general succeed in college.</p>
<p>Senator Lazich admitted this trend about her state last year, “Wisconsin high school students have a long, proud history of exceptional performance on ACT tests, registering some of the highest scores in the country. That is the good news. The bad news is that despite performing well on ACT tests, many Wisconsin high schoolers remain unprepared for college.”</p>
<p>I don’t think you should call the SAT a “poorly made test” just because you might not have scored well on it. The questions are “tricky” because they involve critical reasoning, a challenging skill not tested on the ACT. I know you value hardwork and the basic skills found in the ACT, but the truth is that the SAT is just valued more.</p>
<p>Every college I have ever seen explicitly says that the SAT and ACT are valued equally. Did you see some evidence that the SAT is more valued, or do you just know that people don’t score as well on it?</p>
<p>36 = 2400</p>
<p>Who cares if one is easier?</p>
<p>The notions that the SAT is “valued more” than the ACT by adcoms and that the ACT is easier than the SAT are two of the biggest myths in the college admissions process. There is NO support for either proposition. In terms of assessing an applicant’s ability to succeed at college level work, many sources – including the Princeton Review – will tell you that the ACT is the superior test.</p>
<p>the guy who started this thread is talking about the difficulty of the barrons act 36 book, not the difficulty of recieving a 36…</p>
<p>Post #3 seems to have hijacked the thread. I tried to in post #37 but so far nobody has bitten. In any case OP is from May, so he probably found his answers somewhere else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The SAT has gotten a lot more criticism then that I can tell you.</p>
<p>And I just read the statement
</p>
<p>I would think that for most people that take both tests at around the same time the scores would be in the same range.</p>