<p>Thanks Cjgone for all the help :]</p>
<p>“Einstein spent his whole life on making theories. That’s called effort, not intelligence, sorrry.”</p>
<p>Absolutely not, it was his intelligence. Anyone can put effort in.</p>
<p>btw, you have to understand that most people that cannot do well on the SAT cannot achieve greatness. Try arguing with that. :P</p>
<p>^Yup, and thanks to the ACT those people can. Choices, oppurtunities, this is America, lads. ;o</p>
<p>@Mizz, goodluck! Keep studying a bit everyday, I have faith in you! :D</p>
<p>
This seems somewhat contradictory to me-- the test is natural, yet it requires one to be familiarized with its format? By that logic, the SAT is also a natural test, once you are familiar with its format. Furthermore, at least collegeboard releases more practice tests than the ACT does. So all those “hard workers” can have much more to work with to improve their scores.</p>
<p>
Couldn’t someone argue that the strict time limit precludes many students from demonstrating their true ability? Honestly, while the SAT may have trickier questions, I don’t see how this is much less effective in measuring ability than expecting students to rush through easier worded questions.</p>
<p>
How about the ACT is a test that is a pain for people who need to think of everything that you need to do for a question? I fail to see how rigid time limits are any less prohibitive of critical thinking than the SAT is.</p>
<p>
Really? I think that both have fairly obvious answers. SAT critical reading answers are supported DIRECTLY in the passage. If you know how to do the problem, any answer is very obvious…</p>
<p>
What tricks are you talking about? Could you show me a specific question. I have one from the ACT: I remember in june 2008 (I think), there were pictures of stages of mitosis and there was a question requiring you to identify what stage of mitosis was illustrated. WITHOUT information in the passage. So having to recall a specific step from a process learned in biology is not much of an unfair question?</p>
<p>Now, for all its worth, I did score a 36 ACT and a 2350+ SAT, but I am much happier with my SAT score. While both tests have their faults, I just don’t see the ACT as an effective test.</p>
<p>–One flaw I do see with the SAT is its vocabulary, but even that has some value, since higher level vocabulary is likely to appear in college level reading.</p>
<p>The way I always saw it…</p>
<p>The SAT tests more what I liken to sharpness. For math, this means reading problems very carefully. For vocab, this means your adeptness at learning words throughout your life or in context. For reading, just reading carefully and not being thrown off by seemingly plausible answers. For the entire test in general, just recognizing the tricks and things that throw most people off. Some may liken this to intelligence. It’s similar. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the ACT basically tests reasoning. Given straightforward questions, how quickly can you develop an answer. This is uber-apparent on the science section (a key difference between the two tests) which tests how quickly and effectively you can find and process information. </p>
<p>For those that argue that one test predicts success in life more than the other, or measure overall academic qualities more effectively, both skills (and thus tests) are really necessary. An intelligent person may be able to pick up on certain things quicker, as they are quite keen, but this is virtually useless unless you can quickly reason from observation. And vice-versa. If you want me to give you a personal anecdote that supports this, just ask and I’ll elaborate; it’s kind of long. </p>
<p>And really, when it comes to overall success in life, intelligence past a threshold doesn’t really matter. We all know Einstein, who probably had an insanely high IQ. But can you tell me the “smartest” man in America right now (in terms of IQ)? If you can, it is because you know random facts. If you can’t, it is because this man, although quite bright, never achieved much success due to many societal and personal factors (and his many ideas, unfortunately, never published). On the other hand, writers with IQs a hundred points lower are getting published and achieving some fame. So, intelligence doesn’t really matter much in terms of achieving success (again, after that threshold, which is probably around 115-125 from what I’ve read). It is the other things, along with intelligence (some of which include reasoning, social skills, work ethic, and sheer luck) that contribute near equally to who we are and what we can achieve. Being well on the SAT doesn’t guarantee success, nor does doing well on the ACT (not even close). Just as doing poorly on either test does not preclude one from doing well in life (academically and career-wise). There are hundreds of anecdotes that support this.</p>
<p>So, even if you can prove that the SAT is very similar to an intelligence test (which it is far from, for many reasons), why does that matter? Does it give you personal satisfaction to know that you are intelligent, while people who may score below you on the SAT, are not? Because generally, the people who are in favor of SAT=intelligence argument are those that score very high. If you (not you guys on this specific thread, but in general) need to be reassured that you are smarter than others, whether or not that is actually true, you will need much more than some pat on the back to do well intellectually in life. </p>
<p>In case you guys were wondering, I did pretty similar on both tests. My PLAN was nearly equivalent to my PSAT (unfortunately), and my ACT actual score was equivalent to my projected SAT score (took two real practice tests). I never took the SAT because I needed subject tests, had a high enough ACT score so that the SAT could only be a detriment, was not in NM contention (missed by a point! darn!), didn’t want to acquaint myself with the SAT (aka practice/study) during finals time, and just didn’t like standardized tests in general.</p>
<p>ACT and SAT are clearly different beasts! </p>
<p>Just practice some more and take the SAT again… I doubt you won’t be able to beat the SAT national average if your ACT score is 30+… </p>
<p>You can do it man! Just close the CC window (and youtube, and facebook, and twitter, and …) and get back to work!!! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, how is it contradictory? I said it feels more natural than the SAT. I’ve never seen such a poorly written test in school before in my life. It’s very unnormal to see such a terrible test, so I consider it less natural. You still need to get familiar with the ACT, as you have to for everyday tests (studying).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How well you can read fineprint is not a basis of intelligience.</p>
<p>
Sometimes. The other times it likes to use “Choose the BEST answer”. 2 answers can be right but one is somehow better because the SAT person thought it was better. Not you, unless you become as robotic as the psychologists who made the test.</p>
<p>
The poorly worded questions.</p>
<p>
Uh, I said the time limits were nasty for someone who is coming from the SAT to the ACT for the first time. It’s assumed…
I’m pretty sure being able to think on your feet is more important then how well you can read fine print. That’s just me.</p>
<p>
I agree.</p>
<p>the argument of act vs sat is unnecessary
bottom line: ACT>SAT
why? SAT is designed for rich ppl to do well, most of whom live near the coastline, also it tests vocab only rich americans use
ACT is designed to be FAIR, thats y ppl can do well on it no matter how rich they r</p>
<p>also, if u guys havent noticed, this threads sidetracking from OP</p>
<p>just wanna remind y’all the original question was “Have any of you receive a very low SAT score (possibly below national average), but excelled on the ACT (30+)?”
NOT wuts better: act or sat?</p>
<p>i got a 2130 on the sat and 32 on the act. a 2130 sat converts to a 32 act score according to the act//sat conversion chart. so im evenly matched in both.</p>
<p>^It always seems to get back to the old ACT vs. SAT argument. </p>
<p>92jjxx: I think the SAT requires more studying, which will tend to favor not necessarily rich people, but people who have parents and teachers and GCs in the know (which happens to be the middle to upper class). I’m not sure about your vocabulary argument. However, one thing rich/educated teens also have is strongly developed reasoning skills. This gives them an advantage on the ACT, whereas poorer students might not be used to having to think so fast (possibly? that seems to make sense). </p>
<p>It’s hard to really say one is better than the other. I just prefer to say they are equal, which is how colleges view them, but different.</p>
<p>Lol, you people are funny. You guys will never come to an agreement. Admit it- people that did better on a certain test will always favor it over another. </p>
<p>However, I don’t understand the whole concept about rich people having a “strongly developed reasoning skills” and “poorer students might not be used to having to think so fast”? What kind of ridiculous statements are those? It’s pretty bold to say, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Meh, I just don’t like cjgone dissing the SAT so much.</p>
<p>I wish he would just say, “it’s not my test” or something along those lines.</p>
<p>You are right, some people favor one over the other, and he is definitely one of them.</p>