That’s interesting. My daughters did well on both tests but always a bit better on the SAT than on the ACT, and they found the SAT an “easier” and less painful test to take. I think that’s mostly because the SAT Math didn’t require you to remember and apply much actual math; it was more focused on “mathematical reasoning” ability, i.e., can you figure out conceptually how to solve a problem, and can you spot and avoid the traps and tricks the authors of the SAT build into certain questions? The ACT required more actual, straightforward computation and (as they experienced it) placed a greater premium on computational speed and accuracy to finish on time, so in their view the ACT involved more drudgery and was less conceptual. Some people may find the straightforward computational drudgery of the ACT “easier”; for others the more conceptual SAT is easier sledding. My daughters also detested the ACT Science section which didn’t require any actual knowledge of science but instead was mostly about interpreting graphs, charts, and data sets, something neither of them had much patience for but did OK at when required. No such skill set or patience with working with data required for the SAT.
But who knows what the “new” SAT will look like, now that it’s been retooled to more closely resemble the ACT which had eclipsed the SAT in market share? Getting Illinois to flip on mandatory testing is a huge coup for the College Board, probably enough to recapture their #1 market position, at least in the short term. Hard to see that it benefits Illinois HS students, though, and the savings to taxpayers are trivial, roughly 10 cents per capita. Given the history and culture of Illinois politics, my question would be, who got paid how much to make this happen? Clearly the parties with the greatest interests at stake are the College Board (SAT) and the ACT. Next greatest self-interest lies with the politicians and bureaucrats in a position to make the switch . . . if they can do so in a way that redounds to their benefit. As the late, great Chicago newspaper columnist Mike Royko pointed out, Chicago’s unofficial motto was “Ubi est mea?” Latin for “Where’s mine?” Pure speculation on my part, of course, but this strikes me as a potential “Ubi est mea?” moment/