<p>cuz it sure didn’t for me
i found it to be the hardest thing ever…and ran out of time on like all sections except for english!!
here was my score from feb 2009
composite: 29
english: 27/ 8 on essay
math: 32
reading: 28
science: 28</p>
<p>sat score from march 2009
composite: 2290
critical reading: 750
math: 740
writing: 800, 11 on essay</p>
<p>what about you guys?? (i canceled my act score btw =P i use it for laughs)</p>
<p>The ACT NEVER worked “better” for “everyone”</p>
<p>It worked better for “some” people. If you think about it, the SATs are still more widely used than the ACTs and there is a reason for that.</p>
<p>^what about you?</p>
<p>I hope that the SAT goes better than the ACT for me.</p>
<p>some people just believe that the test material is easier. I have only taken the ACT and got a 33. That’s more than what I needed so I didn’t bother with anything else. (All my schools are ACT schools)</p>
<p>I’ve taken both tests (33 on ACT and 2170 on SATretaking both), and I think that the SAT, even though it tests reasoning skills and “intelligence” to a greater extent, works better for a lot of students because of the shorter sections and more generous time allotments. On the other hand, the ACT tests your knowledge of material learned in school at a challenging pace (this is often the bane of those who struggle with the ACT Science or Reading sections40 questions in 35 minutes is definitely pushing it for some people). It ultimately comes down to your personal academic strengths and weaknesses whether you prefer the SAT or the ACT; usually, the best way to find out is to take both tests.</p>
<p>The SAT works better with those of higher intellectual aptitude, hence the former title “scholastic aptitude test”</p>
<p>The ACT works better for those who are hard workers, yet might not have the intellectual prowess to tackle the nuance of the SAT. </p>
<p>Prove me wrong.</p>
<p>^thanks for calling me smart =] i’m not gonna prove you wrong
hahahah kidding</p>
<p>I got a 2270 on the SAT, I know I am going to do worse on the ACT (probably like a 31). But, I know many kids at my school get like 1800s on the SAT, but then like a 31 on the ACT which is a pretty big improvement. And then there are those kids who get a 2400 on the SAT and a 36 on the ACT, but there aren’t many.</p>
<p>The ACT is a mess for people who need to think. There simply isn’t enough time. Same thing with the SAT, actually…</p>
<p>“The ACT works better for those who are hard workers, yet might not have the intellectual prowess to tackle the nuance of the SAT.”</p>
<p>I could not disagree more with this. I don’t see how being a hard worker will correlate to a higher ACT score. What differentiates ACT takers is speed. I know plenty of very hard workers who can’t do well on the ACT, simply because they are not naturally smart enough. I also know a handful of complete slackers who get a 35 or 36 on the ACT. I really have never seen any causation among my peers with being hard working and having a higher ACT score. Generally, the more intelligent one is, the more one works, thus the higher one should score on any standardized tests. But there are still many mediocre students that work plenty hard, but are still mediocre when it comes down to standardized tests. </p>
<p>I think the SAT has considerably more questions designed to trick test-takers. So, performing well on the SAT is strongly linked with just knowing how to take the test. But I really don’t see how being sharp enough to know these tricks and catch them means you have a higher intellectual aptitude. </p>
<p>I really can’t prove you wrong, because all my evidence is anectdotal. But, why don’t you prove yourself correct? And did you do better on the SAT than the ACT? Because it seems like you favor a high scorer on the SAT (labeling them as having intellectual prowess) but dismiss good performance on the ACT to merely those “hard workers.”</p>
<p>BTW, I got similar high scores on both. I don’t prefer one or the other. I think they both do a pretty good job of determining academic talent and ability. And, for the record, I’m not one of those “hardworkers”, at least compared to my peers and the average CC poster.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>I totally disagree with your statement, because the ACT test easier subjects, like Pre-algebra and Geometry.</p>
<p>Let’s say we have a smart student who took AP Calc BC, AP Chem, AP English, and excelled in each of those classes by earning fives on the AP exams.</p>
<p>However, let’s say that student get’s a 23 or 24 on the ACT…it doesn’t mean he/she is not smart enough, it is because they lack common sense. Genius’ lack common sense, a lot of other people don’t. So more people achieve better scores because of the easy subjects.</p>
<p>My 2 cents on this issue:</p>
<p>The SAT and the ACT are two completely different beasts that are designed by two separate test agencies. Basically these tests have two major similarities, they are both made by companies who only care about making ALOT of money and they both matter to colleges. Both tests also attempt to assess student knowledge of math, english, reading, and science (only on the ACT). What I have found about “which test is harder” is this. The SAT gives you ALOT of time to answer hard and tricky questions that some people simply will not understand and studying will not help them with those questions for the most part. The ACT, however, quizzes you on EXTREMELY basic stuff that is never presented in a particularly tricky way. The catch is that the ACT doesnt exactly give you a lot of time to get all these questions answered. However, after you get the timing down with some review, good scores (32+) are not unattainable. I love, though, seeing people who just “showed up” for the ACT and find that they only got 50-75% of the reading and science done before time is called. I was one of those ppl, but with study I got it up to a 34. In conclusion, the way I see it, the ACT is VERY easy with study while the SAT is a test you either get intially or fail.</p>
<p>Nike- You didn’t get what I was trying to say: The ACT itself is all doable, but you need to have good time management skills to succeed. What I really disagreed with is Gator’s claim that the ACT works well for hard workers. I see no causation there at all. </p>
<p>And your scenario is very unrealistic. Someone that got 5s on all those tests will have the critical reading abilities, math abilities, and test-taking skills to get a good score on the ACT. The only factor that could hold that student back is a lack of time on the science section (which of the four sections is by far the most about speed). But if someone is that good at math, the ACT math should be a cakewalk and time shouldn’t be much of a factor. And if someone is that good at AP english (which is similar to the ACT), they should do fine on the reading and (assuming they know some grammar) the writing as well.</p>
<p>I could give you the same scenario with the SAT. How about those people who get all 5s on the AP test, get fantastic scores on the SATII, but do poorly on the SAT because they don’t know the test’s nuances?</p>
<p>And I said a “pretty good job of determing academic talent and ability.” So, even if your extreme example were true, my claim leaves room for exceptions, which there are in both cases.</p>
<p>Yea, I feel that ACT is way easier as compared to SATs (esp in the english sections). SAT has many tricky english qn with choices that all seem correct. I feel that the ACT time restriction is not an issue for me as I’ve experienced worse in unbelievably tough singapore exams.</p>
<p>The thing is, how many “average” thinkers have you seen get like a 2100+ on the SAT? I know one peer of mine in my school last year who was really lazy and didn’t care about school, but took the ACT once, got a 36 somehow and went to Northeastern. I am certainly not saying that kids who get 30+ on the ACT are dumb, but I think it takes a totally different kind of thought process to get a very good score on the SAT. I really don’t know, I just wrote down what I thought.</p>
<p>^Are you referring to my post(s)? </p>
<p>First, you support pretty much the main point I was trying to make; that Gator’s claim that the ACT works well for hard-workers has no basis whatsoever. Because it is extremely easy to slack off in high school and get a high score, as your friend did. And I’ve seen very hard workers (but ultimately just mediocre thinkers) that can’t get above a 30. </p>
<p>Second, just because your friend was lazy doesn’t mean he is an average thinker. In fact, he is probably the oppositem, in that he has a lot of intellectual talent but doesn’t have the drive to try in school, which I’ve seen many times. And even if the ACT is better for average thinkers (which I actually think it is) that was not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to make the point that “trying hard” in high school will not be a positive benefit your ACT score (or not trying will be detrimental).</p>
<p>Honestly, if you get a 36 or a 2400, you are very smart. Whether or not you get good grades is a completely different story, and is irrelevant to how well you do on “critical reasoning” tests. I haven’t seen an example to prove otherwise. If you get a 32 or 2100 (the equivalents), you can be either a strong intellectual that can’t figure out either the nuances of the SAT or the time of the ACT or you can be a mediocre thinker who is perfectly fit for the test, or somewhere in between. Yes, the tests are different, and it takes a different approach to do well on each, but I think both can be good measures of intelligence and reasoning. And generally, the weirdist I’ve heard is someone acing the ACT and getting like a 2100 on the ACT or someone acing the SAT and getting a 32 on the ACT. There generally isn’t that much disparity between scores for each, and when there is a disparity, it goes both ways.</p>
<p>Senior , the SAT inherently tests aptitude, hence the former title “Scholastic APTITUDE Test”</p>
<p>The reasoning behind the name change was due to the PC movement and students with low self esteem complaining about whether it tests aptitude, which most studies show.</p>
<p>You contention was that the ACT teaches speed and test taking ability. I actually agree. But that means the ACT is actually easier for hard workers because they can do numerous practice tests and memorize concepts in order to help their speed.</p>
<p>Inductively, most of my friends who have plateaued with the SAT, with scores hovering around the 1100’s, have found success with the ACT. Why? Because frankly, while they are not that innately smart, they are hard workers who are able to learn the style of the ACT and score are 28-30. The ACT teaches a wide range of concepts broadly while the SAT teaches few concepts in depth. Therefore, lazy, albeit smart, students are more prone to success on the SAT. </p>
<p>Thus, if anything the ACT is the more teachable test due to its rudimentary testing style and facile nature of questioning.</p>
<p>Why does everyone blindly say the SAT measures intellegence just because it is called the “aptitude test”. If they renamed the SAT test the ■■■■■■ test, and you got a perfect score, would you be a ■■■■■■? Yes they are two different tests, and yes the SAT requires more critical thinking but dont blindly agree with the test’s name. After all, how can 4 hours of your life measure your “aptitude”?</p>
<p>That makes more sense. I thought you were saying that being a hard worker throughout high school will somehow lead to a better ACT score. But, people commonly study for the SAT as well, so there must be some structure to that test as well. </p>
<p>You mean 1100/1600, right? And again, the opposite can be true. Like people that platue around a 28 on the ACT because of their inability to reason quickly may be able to up their scores on the SAT by learning vocabulary, math concepts, and the ability to recognize the tricks that the college board uses. </p>
<p>So, would you agree with me on this: The SAT is better for people of a well-rounded intelligence (good vocab, math skills, critical reading, etc.), while the ACT is better for those that reason quickly. Because I think both are critical to what you define as “intellectual prowess.” Which supports why, IMO, the smartest people in my classes are not only the ones that get As on tests, but finish them considerably quicker than other students because of their high reasoning ability. And these are the ones who do very well on both the ACT and SAT.</p>