<p>I would like to ask folks here if one calculator can come handy over other? I have Ti-83 plus, not sure if this all you need. I was wondering if you use particular calculator which can help you with programming certain equations and help you with graph problems. I'm also not sure if ACT will only allow you to use certain calculator.</p>
<p>TI-83 is sufficient for ACT math (TI-89 and anything higher than that are banned). Programs are honestly a waste of time, which you don’t have much of - don’t bother.</p>
<p>You’ll never need to write a program on a calculator to help you solve a problem – if you find yourself doing so, there is almost always a faster solution.</p>
<p>I’ve been taking and teaching math classes since the 1990s with my TI-83.</p>
<p>I disagree! i would recommend getting programs for your calculator. a ti 83 plus is sufficient. Lets just say you feel nervous and forget an equation, you cant remember the life of you if the equation has a + or - sign in it. Like you can get program for distance,foil,defoiling,and quadratic. take 3 seconds to put it in and chances are its alot faster</p>
<p>I will admit that there were no graphing calculators in 1980 when I took the SAT, so I am hardly up-to-date in many ways, but I am stunned by the idea that SAT-takers don’t have to reset the memory in their calculators before the test.</p>
<p>I agree with the above. If you find yourself needing the program to solve a question, then you are not getting the question. Most questions should be solved less than a minute.</p>
<p>True fact.</p>
<p>you can reset it but you can create a backup memory. itll delete everything when u reset but then u put in a passcode that will recover everything</p>
<p>And in what sense is that resetting he memory?</p>
<p>I mean that its a way to bypass the system. The can “reset” the memory but you can recover it. You might say its unethical, you might say cheaters never prosper. Thats complete BS</p>
<p>It is completely unethical. That seems not to bother you though. Your parents must be so proud.</p>
<p>It is also a stupid use of time and resources when compared with just learning the formulas. If you need them at all, you’re going to need them in later math classes.</p>
<p>Using calculator programs that you made is absolutely not unethical. By allowing calculators such as the TI-83 and 84, the college board and the ACT are aware that people are going to be smart about it, and use programs that make calculations faster. At its worst, it is a grey area; at its best, it saves a lot of time. </p>
<p>Using programs isn’t the equivalent of cheating. As long as the calculator is allowed, so too are any programs on it.</p>
<p>I don’t understand how that’ll create an advantage for the standardized test – you might as well learn the concepts. For example if you find yourself forgetting the distance formula, then you haven’t really learned it (it’s just Pythagorean theorem).</p>
<p>It is a time saver. For example, I know the Pythagorean Theorem, how to factor, and how to find slope, distance, etc. But plugging it into a program that I made saves a lot of time. So I do know the concepts, I’m just being resourceful and saving my time for more challenging problems.</p>
<p>It’s just that I’m not sure how ethical it is to write programs/functions before the test to be used during the test. IMO they should just ban calculators completely.</p>
<p>^^ agreed.I know how to apply my formulas and whatnot. As for if my parents are proud of me, really it doesnt matter ill be proud of myself when i can net in 200,000$ or more a year.</p>
<p>Yes, that is exactly the kind of thinking that must make your parents so proud.</p>
<p>There isn’t a person alive who can do the quadratic, distance, or midpoint formulas faster in their heads than someone who has even a basic proficiency with TI 84 programming. </p>
<p>Also, a calculator doesn’t make mistakes. People do. Even if it’s only once in a blue moon, it’s bound to happen every now and again.</p>
<p>Only a fool wouldn’t use a calculator to his/her advantage on a test where it is permitted.</p>
<p>Umm, I’m pretty sure I can find the distance between (2,5) and (5,9) in faster time than I can punch those keys on a calculator. Same with finding midpoints.</p>
<p>Also, most calculators (other than CAS ones, which are banned) won’t give you exact answers…so if you have to solve the quadratic 4x^2 - 9x + 3 = 0 and you need exact answers, how does knowing that the roots are .40693 and 1.8431 trivially lead you to the correct answer?</p>