<p>What do you guys think?</p>
<p>They’re both equal?</p>
<p>2400 without a doubt.</p>
<p>2400 because 2400 is a much bigger number than 36. (SAT does a good job of making its scores appear big)</p>
<p>I’d prefer a 2400 over a 36.</p>
<ol>
<li>I’ve met several people with 36s, but never have I met a 2400er.</li>
</ol>
<p>Honestly I would say that a 36 (that is a 36 with all 36’s for subscores) is harder to get than a 2400 SAT. You miss 1 question on science and you’re at 34.</p>
<p>I think the SAT is the better test and a 2400 is more desirable. I don’t want to say that one is more impressive than the other, as they’re both perfect scores, but if test scores were money, a 2400 would be so ca$h</p>
<p>I would honestly say tthat a 2400 is much harder to get. I would say it actually requires studying whereas a lot of ppl who score 36 dont really have to intensely study-since the passage reading is fairly straight forward, the math isnt out to trick you-unlike the SAT, and the grammar is a lot easier/different than SAT writing. The Science section probably requires some practice-just to get used to your method, but overall I would say a 2400 is MUCH harder to get as well. -1 math is usually like a 760, whereas you can get a 35, 35, and two 36’s on the ACT and still get a 36.</p>
<p>I have a 35 ACT and think a 2400 is more impressive than a 36. I think the essay and vocab would probably kill me on the SAT, luckily the essay isn’t that important for for the ACT :)</p>
<p>I took both, and they are both -1 equals perfect score.
I would say ACT exhibits your aptitude for science and how efficient you are.
SAT is an achievement thing that demonstrates your meticulousness in trap avoiding.</p>
<p>both are very good if done in one sitting though SAT 2400 in one sitting would be more impressive
would not be very impressive if they are superscored</p>
<p>how about you first achieve those scores and then we’ll talk? Okay?</p>
<p>ACT measures what you know, while SAT measures what kind of environment you’ve grown up in.</p>
<p>2400 fo sure</p>
<p>A perfect 36 (36 in all subsections), is more impressive than a 2400, IMO. Honestly though, it really depends on what you’re “better” at (I’m stronger on the SAT so a 36 would be more impressive in my eyes) and what kind of your environment you live in (I live in a heavily favored ACT environment so I’m nurtured to believe a 36 is more impressive).</p>
<p>The SAT is a more noteworthy, due to 2 simple reasons:
- The Science section on the ACT is more or less completely useless, and does not gauge true science competency at all. It merely tries to see how well you interpret graphs, in which case, the section should be renamed Statistics section.
- The Reading section on the SAT is orders of magnitude tougher than the corresponding English section on the ACT, which doesn’t even test vocabulary.
Overall, the SAT is a test of your reasoning capabilities, with even the Math section testing your analytical skills. The ACT is merely a test of your basic knowledge. There’s a reason that people who do worse on the SAT, decide to take the ACT.</p>
<p>More people get 36s than 2400s, yet more people take the SAT. You do the math.</p>
<p>Don’t know which is harder, but a 2400 is definitely more impressive</p>
<p>2400 because you don’t have to have all 36s in your subscore to get a 36, but you do have to have 800 in each section of the SAT too</p>