Deciding Between the ACT and SAT: What's the Difference?

[binzing]

I plan on probably taking both at least once.

 

[acolavin]

Firstly, a genius with a 150 IQ who does not study will not do well on the test. Intelligence is also a measure of how well one applies oneself.

Secondly, while the other parts of the test might not be as important as your major subjects (say math and physics) they are still necessary. You'll notice, however, that there is no history on either of the tests! I'm willing to assert that everything on either test is an important part of any science-based career. And if you're going into art, I guarantee that they look at other factors, such as what institutions you're part of, etc. They are also testing you on how you learned in high school. Did the school give you the necessary life skills? (Everyone needs math, everyone needs English)

And the tests do not test you on "thousands of subjects". Personally I don't like the tests, but in retrospect they were not as bad as I made them out to be. They test our knowledge of high school material.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Firstly, a genius with a 150 IQ who does not study will not do well on the test. Intelligence is also a measure of how well one applies oneself.

Secondly, while the other parts of the test might not be as important as your major subjects (say math and physics) they are still necessary. You'll notice, however, that there is no history on either of the tests! I'm willing to assert that everything on either test is an important part of any science-based career. And if you're going into art, I guarantee that they look at other factors, such as what institutions you're part of, etc. They are also testing you on how you learned in high school. Did the school give you the necessary life skills? (Everyone needs math, everyone needs English)

And the tests do not test you on "thousands of subjects". Personally I don't like the tests, but in retrospect they were not as bad as I made them out to be. They test our knowledge of high school material.

I see, so essentially they are a catch all test? That doesn't catch all?

Let's say for example I have an IQ of 150 why do you think I will do well on the test, even if I study? What about if I'm say severely dyslexic? I might actually do really poorly and despite being quite intelligent end up at some flee pit studying something I don't want to do?

I can see why you don't like them though, my sympathies, I don't think whoever thought them up was thinking very hard about any creative or artistic subjects. As to whether they are important, I leave that up to your opinion. Put it this way the Sourbon one of, if not the best University in the world, would admit a virtuoso without the ability to do maths let alone write proficiently. hehe. In fact off the top of my head I can think of one or two people who say that without music they would have had a very average life as they were very poor students.

 

[acolavin]

I'm not sure what you mean. Dyslexia is a handicap, and there are modifications made to the test environment to make is more fair. I'm not too sure about this process.
With the IQ of 150, you might have an advantage. Although my friends in prestigious colleges (Berkeley, for example) did worse than I did on the SAT and ACT, despite straight As. There is a lot of debate as to whether tests are a fair test of knowledge. The colleges know this. The SATs and ACTs are not as important as they are hyped up to be. You are not defined by that test.
At this point, what are you trying to argue?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I'm not sure what you mean. Dyslexia is a handicap, and there are modifications made to the test environment to make is more fair. I'm not too sure about this process.
With the IQ of 150, you might have an advantage. Although my friends in prestigious colleges (Berkeley, for example) did worse than I did on the SAT and ACT, despite straight As. There is a lot of debate as to whether tests are a fair test of knowledge. The colleges know this. The SATs and ACTs are not as important as they are hyped up to be. You are not defined by that test.
At this point, what are you trying to argue?

That artistic ability or creative endeavour is not reflected by the tests. I asked earlier why then people get through the net without being good students, I didn't receive an answer, so I assumed either they didn't or they did but ended up doing crappy jobs or degrees at crappy Universities that they didn't really have any real aptitude for.

 

[binzing]

Wow, no history that's stupid, I'm a history wizz, or was. I've got a 136 IQ or thereabouts. I plan on getting the study books that they have, I already have a vocabulary one. Anyways, thanks everyone.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Wow, no history that's stupid, I'm a history wizz, or was. I've got a 136 IQ or thereabouts. I plan on getting the study books that they have, I already have a vocabulary one. Anyways, thanks everyone.

There's a thread burried here somewhere that rates history as the 9th difficult subject by quality of students. Of course physics is top followed by maths then engineering, then I forget, then philosophy?! and so on down through to Biology, chemistry and down to Mickey Mouseology. Apparently the degree means doing a lot of your own thinking and analysing of evidence rather than just remembering the date of the battle of Hastings, for example. Apparently it's pretty tough.

 

[tribdog]

Wow, no history that's stupid, I'm a history wizz, or was. I've got a 136 IQ or thereabouts. I plan on getting the study books that they have, I already have a vocabulary one. Anyways, thanks everyone.

OHHHH! It's so hard to say this without sounding like a jerk. Everyone I've ever heard make up an IQ claims that their IQ is 136. Just enough to qualify as genius, but not the absolute lowest genius. I've taken a few IQ tests and everytime I get a score it is a multiple of 5.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

OHHHH! It's so hard to say this without sounding like a jerk. Everyone I've ever heard make up an IQ claims that their IQ is 136. Just enough to qualify as genius, but not the absolute lowest genius. I've taken a few IQ tests and everytime I get a score it is a multiple of 5.

My IQ is 8000 actually.

Actually I have no idea any more, since from taking IQ tests on line it varies from 120-160 depending on the test. In other words don't take internet IQ tests they suck.

 

[tribdog]

I got a 210 on an internet iq test once. Sounds pretty accurate to me

 

[binzing]

Hey, tribdog, I swear mines right about there, I don't remember the exact score. 210 is complete BS, ha ha.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I got a 210 on an internet iq test once. Sounds pretty accurate to me

Is that the one where they ask you to send £100 to sign up to the high IQ society of x. Because I think most people are supra-geniuses on that particular one.

If you really had 210 though, since that's almost unheard of you'd probably be working for some top secret government organisation or something.

 

[binzing]

Well, the IQ test has and is being proven to be nearly worthless anyways.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well, the IQ test has and is being proven to be nearly worthless anyways.

That's why I don't like one off tests being given so much merit on your future, if an IQ test doesn't measure your raw ability intellectually, then think how much a SAT measures? I just think it's more sensible to look at relevant subjects to the degree you've studied and how well you did over the course of that study. Sure there are exams at the end of the study period but even they aren't 100% of the whole mark. Just seems more sensible to me, I mean not everyone excels in the areas it tests, doesn't mean they aren't brilliant, just that they aren't brilliant at SATS tests. What's the point of testing how clever you are at maths, when you're studying English literature? Or how good you are at language comprehension when you're studying maths? Or electronics, or fine art? Seems to me using a general knowledge test to determine your aptitude is somewhat flawed. Ok if it isn't all they look at, but if you ask me in many subjects it's going to be virtually useless as an indicator of your performance at University. And in that case you're probably getting students in that aren't actually the best at what they do. If not then that's more a matter of luck than judgement.

 

[tribdog]

My IQ on the test was 210, but if I upgraded for $15 it went up another 10 points.

 

[Moonbear]

That artistic ability or creative endeavour is not reflected by the tests. I asked earlier why then people get through the net without being good students, I didn't receive an answer, so I assumed either they didn't or they did but ended up doing crappy jobs or degrees at crappy Universities that they didn't really have any real aptitude for.

Standardized tests like the SAT and ACT aren't subject tests, they just test basic verbal and math skills that would be needed to be reasonably competent at college level course work. These are supplemented by Achievement Tests in individual subjects (one usually takes the Achievement Tests in subjects related to their intended major), so someone who wants to go into a history major would likely be expected to do well on the verbal part of the SAT or ACT (you still have to do a lot of reading and writing for a history major), the math/analytical section would be less important, and a good subject achievement test score in history would be beneficial.

Likewise, if someone were applying to a school of fine arts, SATs or ACTs would likely not be very heavily weighted at all in the admissions process, while auditions or presentation of an art portfolio would be more important.

The real purpose of these standardized exams is mostly to help interpret one's academic performance in high school when high schools vary widely in quality and grading practices (a straight-A student in a bad school may not be as prepared for college as a straight-A student in a top school, and their relative scores on the SAT or ACT will help sort out those differences, particularly in this day and age of grade inflation).

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

That sounds much more reasonable.

 

[Quincy]

I took the SAT on May 3 and got my score back a couple of days ago:

Critical Reading: 580
Math: 650
Writing: 630
Composite: 1860/2400

Is that good enough for U of Maryland-College Park? Or should I take it again?

 

[max111]

I took the ACT on a whim last December and did very well on all sections, except I believe I could improve on the essay (I received 9 out of 12 possible points). That was the first essay I have ever written in 30 minutes (our class periods are 55 minutes long), and I believe I can do better. However, I hear the essay isn't that important. Should I bother retaking the test? Should I try the SAT?

 

[awvvu]

I took the SAT on May 3 and got my score back a couple of days ago:

Critical Reading: 580
Math: 650
Writing: 630
Composite: 1860/2400

Is that good enough for U of Maryland-College Park? Or should I take it again?

My school (in Maryland) has this college tracking program that plots accepted people's SAT and GPA scores on a graph. Most of our graduating seniors go to UMD CP, so this should be helpful for you:

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4966/genscattergramphppo5.png
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4011/genscattergramphpgg3.png
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/38/scatterlegendcd7.gif

A lot of people consider UMDCP as their safety school, but supposedly this year's admissions were pretty tough and some qualified people were deferred to spring enrollment.

You can see from the plot that everyone with a 2000+ SAT and 3.5+ GPA were accepted. To answer your question though, you should definitely take it again, especially if it was your first try. You'll probably do better the second time (with a lot of practice too).

 

[DavidWhitbeck]

but generally schools don't just look at your SAT/ACT.

Huh? What planet do you live on? Most public universities look at sat/act and transcript grades first, the extras later. They have a lot of applicants and would prefer to boil them down to numbers to make the decision.

And most academic scholarship money is tied to the sat/act performance. My students take the act more than half a dozen times because that score is so strongly tied to university scholarships.

 

[Quincy]

My school (in Maryland) has this college tracking program that plots accepted people's SAT and GPA scores on a graph. Most of our graduating seniors go to UMD CP, so this should be helpful for you:

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4966/genscattergramphppo5.png
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4011/genscattergramphpgg3.png
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/38/scatterlegendcd7.gif

A lot of people consider UMDCP as their safety school, but supposedly this year's admissions were pretty tough and some qualified people were deferred to spring enrollment.

You can see from the plot that everyone with a 2000+ SAT and 3.5+ GPA were accepted. To answer your question though, you should definitely take it again, especially if it was your first try. You'll probably do better the second time (with a lot of practice too).

Thanks a lot man, that is really helpful. My schools has the same college tracking program but only about 10 people from my school apply to UMD-CP so there's not enough information to make any predictions... Anyways, I guess I'll take it agian then, since all i did to prepare for this one was take two practice tests...

Edit: Btw, how many times did you take it & what did you do to prepare? And is 1530/2230 your superscore?

 

[awvvu]

Thanks a lot man, that is really helpful. My schools has the same college tracking program but only about 10 people from my school apply to UMD-CP so there's not enough information to make any predictions... Anyways, I guess I'll take it agian then, since all i did to prepare for this one was take two practice tests...

Edit: Btw, how many times did you take it & what did you do to prepare? And is 1530/2230 your superscore?

Yeah I did really well on the math and reading sections but only got a 670 on the writing. It's not counted as much anyway.

I took it twice, with a year in between and improved a lot. I did a lot of practice tests to prepare. I did sign up for the ACT too, but decided not to take it after receiving my second score.

 

[Quincy]

I took the ACT and got a 31 (English: 34, Math: 33, Reading: 31, Science: 27)... If I send both my SAT score and my ACT score, would the ACT score make up for the SAT score?

 

[uman]

The SAT is a complete bullgarbage test. I didn't study for it at all and got 2370 / 2400. The British system is much better.

 

[Quincy]

^ um.. ok, well how about responses that actually address my question?...

 

[Asphodel]

I took the ACT and got a 31 (English: 34, Math: 33, Reading: 31, Science: 27)... If I send both my SAT score and my ACT score, would the ACT score make up for the SAT score?

That depends wholly on the person reviewing your application and on the institution's policies (if any) on the topic. The only way to even hope to get a solid answer to this is to, you know, ask them.

If they don't require SAT, and your ACT scores are better, only send the ACT scores. Which should be obvious.

I never took the SAT since I thought that the concept of taking points off for guessing was stupid (but I also had a 35 on the ACT Science & Reading when I took it as a HS freshman, so no one seemed to be bothered much that I was stubborn about it). The PSAT was easy. The ACT was also easy. GREs, now GREs are something to worry about a tad.

 

[will.c]

Only subject GREs, though.

The GRE quantitative section is humorously easy, and your verbal score doesn't really matter, first because people don't do as well on the section (I got a perfect quantitative score which was 94th percentile, and a 720 verbal which was 98th!) and your score is taken comparatively, and second, people in technical graduate programs don't need to know what "vicissitudes" are, even if they live them every day.