<p>Don’t you think that kids who get a 2400 on the SAT can take the ACT and still do very well? I think kids who are good at the SAT as Senior0991 said are more well-rounded and can do well on both tests. On the other hands, kids who are very good at the ACT might not necessarily do well on the SAT. That’s why most people take the SAT first (atleast here in the New England area) and if they don’t do good, they take the ACT and see how they do.</p>
<p>^What about the high SAT scorers that aren’t quick enough to handle the ACT? I think time would be the only factor holding the 2400 SAT scorers back. But, as you said, what holds the high ACT scorers back from doing well on the SAT are entirley different (bad vocab, not sharp enough, etc.)</p>
<p>I haven’t taken the SAT yet. But from what I know about the ACT, you can study and figure the test out. But it’s pretty hard to improve more than 2-3 points from people I’ve talked. However, a lot of people on CC seem to improve much more, I just don’t think it’s that common. This kind of seems to point to the ACT as, no matter how hard you work, you’re still kind of stuck in the same general range (with exceptions) So hard workers don’t necessarily win.</p>
<p>Hey lewdawgdude, maybe everybody says the SAT measures intelligence because it obviously does.</p>
<p>[Study:</a> SAT a good measure of IQ | Science Blog](<a href=“http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/2297]Study:”>http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/2297)</p>
<p>When the American Psychological Institute states the SAT is a good measure of IQ, I tend to believe them.</p>
<p>However, few, if any organizations, will say the same thing about the ACT.</p>
<p>The SAT can clearly measure intelligence because it is longer than comparable IQ tests.</p>
<p>Here is what I found:</p>
<p>The ACTs are more popular for students in the midwest because more schools tend to emphasize on them more than the SATs, whereas for most schools around the midwest are for the SATs. Not all students from those places, however, do better on whichever their school focuses on sometimes. I know in my high school, everybody takes the ACTs because the school was geared to prepare kids for it (Explore Test, PLAN Test, etc.). From another perspective, a friend of mine was from Indiana and her school was all about the SATs, thus most of the students there take those.</p>
<p>I do think the SAT is an IQ test, but only if the person taking the test doesn’t study for it.</p>
<p>I think study does improve your score, as does familiarity, so re-takes in my opinion also don’t correlate to IQ.</p>
<p>So it’s only the first time you take it, and if you didn’t study for it, that in my opinion at least is when it correlates to a person’s IQ score.</p>
<p>This is what worked for me. I took the Differential Aptitude Test in 8th grade, then the SAT test as a senior, just once and without studying, then had an IQ test about 10 years ago. All 3 correlated amazingly well.</p>
<p>i’m not lazy btw -__-
good comments guys</p>
<p>timing isn’t usually a problem in the ACT. For SAT, you really have to count your minutes</p>
<p>Also, SAT has hard vocabulary and you actually have to study them, while ACT tests comprehension rather than how many words you know.</p>
<p>^
Wow that isn’t even close to true. The ACT is only about time.</p>
<p>It doesn’t work better for everyone, but many do test better on the ACT since it is more knowledge based than the SAT.</p>
<p>anyone who says that SAT measures intelligence is insaaaane. If it did measure intelligence people shouldn’t be able to improve drastically (intelligence is not something that people should be able to dramatically increase). The fact is, if you learn how the test writers write the test and how to approach the questions you will increase your score substantially. That doesn’t mean you got more intelligent. i know kids who went up 600 points. It’s not because they got more intelligent. It’s because they took and retook a lot of practice tests. By the way, i got a 2400 on the sat and am not especially intelligent.</p>
<p>The ACT is a lot better for people who work hard because the test actually tests knowledge that you’ve learned, unlike the SAT which makes up worthless crap and somehow has a correlation to intelligience because of what it’s called (True with food actually. When food sounds like it tastes better, people believe it).</p>
<p>The ACT is more straightforward, because the person who made the ACT realized that randomly obfuscating stuff does not in fact show anything worthwhile or useful. I personally think the ACT is easier to study for because i’ve been able to bring my score up a lot over the last few years. A lot of people take this as bad? How is hard-work bad…??? Intelligience is based on luck and people favor luck over hard-work? That’s really sad… No wonder our society is so screwed up…</p>
<p>And I also disagree with the intelligience thing about the SAT. My sister was in a gifted program for several years, and tested over a 140+ IQ but only got around a 1700 on the SAT, but way higher on the ACT. I also have a lot higher on the ACT (32 vs 1910) atm. The SAT is a mixed bag of elbow licking, lottery winning, useless logic, and even more worthless concepts sprinkled around for no reason. 'I don’t like the SAT, never will. The test is absolutely horrendous.</p>