<p>They're both perfect scores, but which would you prefer to have? Which one do colleges appreciate more?</p>
<p>i guess it would depend what you got on your essay for the ACT. But theyre both perfect so it doesnt even matter.</p>
<p>A 36 on the ACT doesn’t even equate to a 2400 (it’s a 2380 or 2390 I think) so the 2400 would obviously be better. Also I think fewer people have gotten 2400s…</p>
<p>Assuming 12 on both essays.</p>
<p>definitely 2400, i don’t think “i got a 36” has the same weight as “i got a 2400”</p>
<p>…really a subjective matter but i think SATs are more legit</p>
<p>2400 is a bigger number.</p>
<p>But in all seriousness, its harder to get a 2400. The margin of error on the SAT is like 2 questions or less wrong for a 2400: one on reading, maybe one or two on writing. A 36 is much easier-- Let’s say you 2 36’s and 35’s-- you could miss like a question or two each section. Plus, the ACT is a lot shorter.</p>
<p>The SAT is so ingrained in the culture of college admissions so I feel that the 2400 is innately more impressive. If the ACT were to be the primary admissions test for the last 50-60 years, then the 36 might hold that same awe. On a psychological level, I think an adcom looking at a 2400 is more impressed because of that stigma associated with the SAT. </p>
<p>In my honest opinion, the ACT is far easier than the SAT, the only caveat with that is that the time limits on the ACT make it a little more challenging. I don’t think colleges should value the ACT the same as the SAT, because they don’t test the same things. Maybe we should be required to take both for admissions??</p>
<p>Statistically, there are about twice as many single setting 36s as 2400s.</p>
<p>I would personally say the ACT is a little more difficult content-wise, but its shortness makes it overall easier-- high schoolers, or at least those I know (myself included) have notoriously poor attention spans. After that initial BAM the morning of testing, our senses begin to dull partways through the SAT. ACT doesn’t seem to have this problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe because a 36 includes 35.5, 35.75, and 36.0. It’s easier and more likely to get a 35.5 and 35.75. I guess there would be fewer with a 36.0 than a 2400.</p>
<p>But isn’t the number of people who make perfect scores on the ACT and the SAT in the nation each year about the same respectively?</p>
<p>A perfect 36 on the ACT (36s in all four sections) is more impressive than a 2400, in my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>382 for SAT, 588 for ACT. But a 36 on the ACT includes 35.5, 35.75, and 36.</p>
<p>@ACTTester (who is probably ever so lightly biased)</p>
<p>Ehh. I would still disagree. A perfect 36 still allows you to miss a question in each section, if I recall correctly. A 2400 allows you to miss basically one in each section, sometimes two, sometimes none.</p>
<p>Plus, if you take it as percentages of questions correct, SAT is higher.</p>
<p>^ I’ve never taken the ACT, so I have no idea how many questions you can miss per section to receive a 36 in every section. But for the SAT, as far as historical trends go, you can miss 0 Math, 1-2 CR, and 1-2 Writing (Assuming a 12 essay). </p>
<p>Just off of personal observations and anecdotal evidence, I believe that the SAT is the harder test. Only my own opinion of course.</p>
<p>Simply to clarify, (at least on the version of the ACT I took in April) you could only miss 2 questions on the entire test to receive a 36 (a 35.5 actually… -1 in each section was 35).</p>
<p>Not saying this to argue that a 36 is as impressive as a 2400, I just think everyone should be clear on how many questions can be missed, as it seems people were being misled that -1 on each section yields a 36.</p>
<p>@adchang: Actually no, I’m not biased in favor of either test in any significant way (excluding inherent biases which almost everyone obviously holds) despite what my Username might suggest. And no, you recalled mistakenly: you are not always allowed to miss one in each section and get a 36. In fact, for English, you are never, and I repeat NEVER allowed to miss one and still receive a 36. For the other three sections (Math,Reading and Science) you are rarely, maybe once every three testing dates for each, allowed to miss one and still get a 36. Missing two and getting a 36 in any section these days in extremely rare (maybe once every six or so testing dates). Also, I’m pretty sure if there was any data regarding the number of “perfect” (36 in all sections) ACT scorers, it would be less if not far less than the number of people who get 2400s any given year. Sorry for the long-winded post, but to
conclude I think you just might be the biased one here. ;)</p>
<p>I will cede that a rounded 36 is less impressive than a 2400, though.</p>
<p>Ehh, maybe my ACT was particularly difficult so they scaled it nicely?</p>
<p>Truth be told, I was almost one of the rounded 36’s by a question. Worst part is I know what I missed-- a silly its/it’s question. SO… I MUST BE BIASED! XD</p>
<p>ACT: (missed)
34/12 English (3)
Math 35 (1)
Reading 36 (1)
Science 36 (0)</p>
<p>SAT: (missed/blank)
800 Reading (0/1)
750 Math (2/0)
800/12 Writing (1/0)</p>
<p>This is what I’m basing off my opinions off of.</p>
<p>^ No offense, but it’s a little inaccurate to base an assumption of all ACT curves off the particular curves of the one test you took (which you don’t even exactly know the curves of). I’m basing my opinions off an analysis of >10 ACT Score Conversion tables released by ACT in the last 7 years, so I would say they’re pretty accurate. :)</p>
<p>Is there any way to find out how many people got perfect scores in each state?</p>