<p>If I remember correctly, there is no significant statistical difference between a 2390 (or a 2380 for that matter) and a 2400 as I think that they all fall into the 99th percentile. But thank you for the table and the explanation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I’m not sure how strictly you’re using the phrase “significant statistical difference,” but 2390 and 2400 are indeed both in the 99th percentile, very deep within it, in fact. Nonetheless, that ACT estimates that 36 concords to 2390 and not 2400 and that 115% more people score 36 than 2400 despite the fact that more people take the SAT suggest strongly that it is easier to score 36 than to score 2400.</p>
<p>^Didn’t you mean to say that more people take the SAT? And yes, I agree that 2380-2400 is well into the 99th percentile on the SAT, but if I remember correctly, 2280 or so will also put you there, albeit at the bottom of that top percentile.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, my mistake.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, 2400 is the 99.98th percentile, 2380 is the 99.95th percentile, and 2280 is the 99.47th percentile. The College Board lists even 2200 as being in the 99th percentile, but they are rounding up from about 98.5.</p>
<p>As for my thoughts about the ACT vs. SAT…</p>
<p>I agree that the ACT is a more approachable test: its test-day format is more straightforward (fewer section breaks), there is no intimidating wrong-answer deduction, and it has a reputation for being more approachable, which is self-fulfilling in some ways. Many people label the ACT as a test of what you learned it school, whereas they consider the SAT to be full of tricks planted by the people at the College Board. </p>
<p>Indeed, the ACT is more similar to typical school tests in that it tests content in a way that requires minimal reasoning and problem-solving strategy, or at least I would characterize it as such. However, there’s something to be said for both achievement and aptitude, so one could see as a strength what another would deem a drawback. </p>
<p>Take, for example, the ACT’s Math section. The questions are decidedly more advanced than those on the SAT’s Math section; but for one with the appropriate educational background, the questions are rather simple applications of what they have learned. The SAT’s Math question, in contrast, test basic concepts but in ways that require some reasoning. In other words, foremost aptitude (SAT) vs. foremost achievement (ACT); I qualify with “foremost” because there is, of course, much overlap.</p>
<p>The English section of the ACT and Writing section of the SAT are pretty comparable, but the ACT focuses more on punctuation and broad writing decisions, while the SAT stresses sentence-level writing decisions and mostly avoids punctuation. The sections aren’t too different fundamentally.</p>
<p>The reasoning focus of the SAT manifests quite meaningfully on the Critical Reading section, where interpretation that requires critical synthesis from different parts of the passage contrasts with the ACT’s relatively straightforward style of calling on the student to, essentially, find the relevant part from the text and match it with the paraphrased answer choice. Time is also more of an issue on the ACT in general. </p>
<p>We should assess the relative merits of the tests by holding them up to their purpose, but this is vague. The most common answer is that the tests should have significant validity in predicting college-freshmen’s GPAs. Last time I checked the predictive validity statistics, I believe that the SAT was more successful, especially after the introduction of the new SAT in 2005. These statistics are conducted by the test-makers themselves, however.</p>
<p>Personally, I felt that I had to think more meaningfully during the SAT, so I would side with that test. But I have no problem with the current policy of evaluating them on equal grounds. Perhaps considering and requiring both would provide an even more complete picture to admissions officers, but I doubt that students would be too happy about that.</p>
<p>^ Others’ thoughts on the issue? It’s often difficult to discuss this because we students almost always have biases as a result of having scored better on one test or having not even taken one of the two. Nonetheless, I consider my comments to be pretty objective, considering that I succeeded on both.</p>
<p>I don’t see anyone else too qualified to discuss the issue, considering you earned a perfect score on both.</p>
<p>I can throw in my two cents. 1390/1600 and 2190/2400 on SAT with a 12 essay and 34 on the ACT with a 10 essay. Both taken in June 2010. Clearly, I enjoyed more success on the ACT.</p>
<p>Personally, the ACT was a breeze compared to the SAT. I believe it tested actual knowledge, rather than the ability to learn the tricks behind a test. I agree with what silverturtle said, for the most part.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have taken ACT practice exams, but I never sat for the real thing. I found that it was a much more direct exam than the SAT; though I did not prepare much for the SAT, it did require closer reading than the ACT practice exams I took. I got away with a lot more (under timed conditions, I scored a 36 S - 36 E - 35 M - 36 R; I didn’t write the essay) than I did on the SAT.</p>
<p>I would concur with most of what silverturtle said. I do think that the SAT tends to be a more “coachable” test than the ACT in that learning the tricks of the test makers – and how not to fall for them – can significantly raise your score. There are four factors that can make the ACT difficult – it tests some material that the SAT doesn’t test at all; it tests some material at a higher level than the SAT; there is significant time pressure; and the curve is very harsh.</p>
<p>If you get a 2370 to 2400 on SAT would you NOT report “only” an 35 on the ACT and just report the SAT? Let’s hear both pros or cons for reporting both.</p>
<p>^ IMO I wouldn’t send the ACT just because of the extra cost per school. Why waste money when your SAT is as competitive as it can possibly be? However, if the 35 was sent for whatever reason, it wouldn’t hurt at all in admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, they’re both in the 99th percentile. I don’t think that there would be much difference between the two. I’m rather surprised by silverturtle’s statistics. I didn’t realize so many people could score a perfect on the ACT than on the SAT. My class generally scored in the 30-35 range, but only 4-5 scored a perfect. But then, my high school has an application process, so I doubt it would be a good representation of the general population. </p>
<p>I’m worried more about the costs of sending in the tests scores. If SAT scores are more competitive than the ACT scores in addition to the new college freshman GPA statistics the SAT features according to silverturtle, then submitting the SAT would possibly have far more legitimacy than the ACT. </p>
<p>As far as I know, I’m not sure the ACT has the same college freshman GPA predicting feature, since as we all know ACT is more about content than aptitude. </p>
<p>I’d disagree slightly with silverturtle’s statement about the English section between the ACT and SAT. Yes, the ACT is more straightforward, but the SAT is just ridiculous. Lots of tricks, but more focused on the correct non-foreign syntax and idioms. I missed a question because of being bilingual, since comparing the two languages can bring some mixed, but more or less correct syntax.</p>
<p>
I felt the same way. I didn’t do any studying for either test other than the question a days, but I felt like the SAT was trying to trick students all the time and it was more about how well you could take the SAT and read the questions, not about if you knew the stuff or not. </p>
<p>With the ACT I feel like even if I took a class for it, if I didn’t know any of the material, it wouldn’t help as much as if I took an SAT class and didn’t know the stuff.</p>
<p>^ Same here.</p>
<p>Damn SAT critical reading section… hated it. 600 first time, 590 second time.</p>
<p>ACT Reading? 33. English? 35. Woot.</p>