<p>Ok gimme a headstart before you all run after me geez lol. I wasnt saying that places likes illinois etc are stupid; you are misinterpreting me. What I said was that the ACT is taken in certain places, like the dakotas and the deep south and places like that, where school isnt stressed so much, so the general population might not do as well as in say the northeast. If you want me to elaborate any further, notice that most of the states that are considered to have the worst education systems take the ACT. Now I didnt say that everywhere the ACT is taken is like that. Your reaction is almost like i said something comparable to a rectangle always being a square. And I really resent being called an uneducated elitist; as a matter of fact i LIVE in one of those places i was talking about, so i think i should know something of the matter.</p>
<p>Someone post the numbers that show that SAT-takers don't suck just as badly, on average, as ACT-takers.</p>
<p><em>Maybe</em> there's some slight variation from state to state, but I'd really be surprised if there's any of the drastic differences you're talking about, particularly in the states you mentioned...</p>
<p>Average ACT scores in 2004 by state:
<a href="http://www.act.org/news/data/04/states.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.act.org/news/data/04/states.html</a></p>
<p>Average SAT scores in 2004 by state:
<a href="http://sde.state.ok.us/test/SAT/SATstateSCORES.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://sde.state.ok.us/test/SAT/SATstateSCORES.pdf</a></p>
<p>ACT -> SAT conversion chart:
<a href="http://www.kheaa.com/prog_keesSAT.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.kheaa.com/prog_keesSAT.html</a></p>
<p>Not seeing it. In fact, the Midwest states seem to have had the highest average composite score on the SAT, followed by southern states, with many of the Northeasterns on the bottom. Why? Probably for the same reason as mentioned below: because such a small percentage of the graduates in these states take the SAT.</p>
<p>As far as the ACT goes, it does at a glance appear that the Northeastern states have a <em>slightly</em> higher composite score on average (maybe 0.5 to 1 point). But take a look at what percent of high school graduates in those states take the ACT. I believe it's been shown that as more of a population's graduates take the ACT test, the average scores tend to become slowly lower. I think this is evident if you take a look at the first link, where you'll see that the states (regardless of where they are) that have the highest percentage of graduates taking the ACT test also happen to have some of the lowest average composite scores of the country. </p>
<p>Although the SAT table doesn't mention any percentage data, my guess is that the exact same holds true for nearly all of the states that are almost entirely SAT testers too, resulting in those states' lower than average SAT composite scores.</p>
<p>Yep, that's what I thought.</p>
<p>The midwest states have high SAT scores because the students who choose to take the SAT are mostly higher-performing students who want to go to prestigious schools on the coasts. Likewise, Northeastern students who take the ACT might have some selective ACT-preferring school in mind, while the lower-performing students are mostly planning to go to the SAT-preferring schools closer to home. Both groups may also have a lot of students who have taken the test that's more popular locally, but didn't score quite high enough to get into the selective school they're eyeing, so they take the other test hoping that they'll do better. Then there are students who take standardized tests for fun, like I did. Those would all be higher-performing groups of students.</p>
<p>"school isnt stressed so much, so the general population might not do as well as in say the northeast. "</p>
<p>They must be sleeping in Drivers Ed then...
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/05/26/dumb_driver_states/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/05/26/dumb_driver_states/index.html</a></p>
<p>I'm sorry about the post above. Please tell me if I can edit it. It's wrong to attack regions.</p>
<p>My understanding is that the conversion chart is based on students who take both tests. So I don't see how the percentiles could be off.</p>
<p>On CC, the scores I've seen reported have some who do better on the SAT, some on the ACT, and some who do equally well on both -- exactly what would be expected.</p>
<p>I've seen no evidence that SAT country is any more or less educated than ACT country, on average. Increasingly, students take both tests or chose the test they perform better on. I'm in SAT country now (grew up in ACT country in a state which, at least at that time, had the highest literacy rate in the nation). However, my daughter took only the ACT, which was sufficient to get her into one of those prestigious places on the coast that people claim (without proof) prefer the SAT.</p>
<p>One possible explanation for why only high-performing students take the test not usual in their areas -- it takes a certain amount of research and intelligence to counteract the "go with what everyone else is doing" inclination. I don't know how many people thought my daughter was doing something risky by not taking the SAT. The geographic preference for certain tests is only a historical artifact, originally based on what colleges wanted and now only based on the fact that most people are sheep.</p>
<p>i think we can all agree that this is now in a Nutshell eh?</p>
<p>I honestly think some of these kids on here have nothing better to do. They just sit on CC all day either a) making up scores for the ACT or b) telling the truth, bragging, but have WAY TOO MUCH time on their hands.</p>
<p>I haven't taken the ACT test but I am hoping for atleast a 28. </p>
<p>33's and 34's? BS.</p>
<p>nickdechile: so if you post that you got a 28 and another kid posts that they got a 35, the latter has way to much time on their hands just because they did well?</p>
<p>33's and 34's fall into the 99% percentile. Granted, it's a bit higher than 99%, but it's still around that range. </p>
<p>Right at the 99.0% percentile means that about 1 in every 100 people who took the test scored the same or higher. Considering that, why is it so hard to believe that some people on here have gotten those scores when over a million people take the ACT test every year? Do the math.</p>
<p>Plus, if someone wanted to lie about it, they could just as well say they received a 36. After all, why bother with a 33 or 34 when you can work up delusions of grandeur over a 36?</p>
<p>B/C of those millions only about 250 recieve perfect composite scores, so it is not as likely.</p>
<p>But that was a good point, never have i seen a post that was so offensive to people, i'll admit i got a composite of 27 but i was not very fluent in english, and i did ask for some kind of exception, but my counselor agreed that i was capable to do well. My older brother who was fluent and had immigrated sooner not with my parents but with other relatives recieved a composite of 34. Mexico is full of very intelligent people but their capabilities are not fully realized because they do not have the resources, many are impoverished, so usually the father has the mindset that education leads no where and that only hard work in some demeaning job will lead to success.</p>
<p>I agree with a 36 not being likely (although possible - I won't directly discredit a 36, but straight 36s? -refer to the score thread for an example)</p>
<p>A 33-34, however, is far from the perfect 36. Last year, there were about 12,000 people who scored a 33 or higher on the ACT, with around 6,000 scoring a 34 or higher. Compare that to the 193 who had a perfect 36. So, it's not unreasonable to think that a few of those many high scores would be present at CC.</p>