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

[Quincy]

Which one is more difficult? ACT or SAT?

 

[Mk]

I like the ACT better. I never could have done well on the SAT. On the ACT I got a 15 in writing (perfect, how bout them apples), and a 30 composite.

But I think the ACT is harder.

Makes sense, see?

 

[Quincy]

Makes sense, see?

No... If it's harder, why do you like it more?

 

[Darkiekurdo]

Define 'difficult'.

 

[Quincy]

Define 'difficult'.

Requires more thinking, never an obvious answer choice, higher level of vocabulary/comprehension, etc.

 

[Moonbear]

Which one is more difficult? ACT or SAT?

Depends on which coast you're from.

 

[Darkiekurdo]

Requires more thinking, never an obvious answer choice, higher level of vocabulary/comprehension, etc.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I was rubbish at COG (Cognative Ability Tests) tests as a kid. So It kind of ruined me on any tests. Exams yes, but tests *shivers*.

Requires more thinking, never an obvious answer choice, higher level of vocabulary/comprehension, etc.

Hehe I was useless at that as a kid.

And as for maths, gifted in some areas beyond the norm, but in tests useless. I don't see them as much use for idiots like me.

 

[G01]

One big difference with the ACT and the SAT is that the ACT has a Science section. So, if you happen to be good at Science, the ACT may be good for you. Also, I believe the ACT has less Math, so if you happen to be less adept at Math, then the ACT may be a consideration.

 

[Math Jeans]

I find the ACT to be much easier than the SATs as the ACTs have no vocabulary section.

 

[binzing]

I'll inject my own question now. Which should I take and when? (I'm frosh now) I am thinking about starting taking them yearly next year as a sophomore, but input would be nice, also, its pretty expensive to do that each year.

 

[jhicks]

Are you a sophomore? I'd look into taking the SAT. Learning that test means you also learn the PSAT, which can mean big $$$'s for college, especially if you live in a state where the qualifying scores are low (like I was!). Poor mass/california kids.

 

[binzing]

I am a freshman this year. I live in New Mexico, which ranks pretty low, but I plan on going to school outta state, possibly Oregon State.

 

[jhicks]

Definitely get to be good buddies with the SAT then, binzing. (ambiguity in age was because I was actually addressing the OP). It doesn't matter which state you qualify in because universities ultimately offer the big part of the scholarship.

 

[binzing]

Sweet, so my plan was right on track. Now how to get the money to take both of those tests each year...

 

[Mk]

Now how to get the money to take both of those tests each year...

I'm sure you can get into the college you want to without having to pay extra money and learning time so you can get a good score on an extra standardized test.

 

[binzing]

No no, I mean where to get the money to take the tests. They are like $75 to take.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I've actually literally been unable to do IQ tests because I didn't understand what they were asking you to do. Another reason I find the tests to be pointless. I don't think they allow you to have extra time in those sorts of tests.

 

[tribdog]

If you are only taking one of the two take the SAT. It is just more recognized everywhere. I took the ACT and got good numbers, but no one knows what a 34 means. If probably doesn't matter much to a college which one you took, but when you are talking with other people it seems like everyone else took the SAT and it is much easier to prove your superiority if you are all on the same scale.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

To be frank I'm glad we don't have testing, A' level results and an interview are much better than some arbitrary test. Let's face it who the hell cares if you can do well on a one off test, I'd rather know you spent two years working your arse off to get 4 A's or some IB or whatever is the equivalent than 1000 on a SAT. I must admit though I think this won't be too popular amongst people who aced the SAT/ACT.

What if you can't do SAT's but are gifted at art?

 

[tribdog]

What if you can't do SAT's but are gifted at art?

Then you can always collect welfare

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Then you can always collect welfare

So artists are valueless?

I must admit SAT's just sound stupid to me, as unpopular as that will be I have to say it. People should study what they are good at and then be admited to University on the basis of that, not some test that rewards skill at maths and English and penalises artistic or creative ability. Who may I ask thought this was a good idea? He was an idiot btw.

 

[tribdog]

So artists are valueless?

You'll never hear me say that. I think artists are very important. Broke, but important.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You'll never hear me say that. I think artists are very important. Broke, but important.

Precisely my point. Who thought it was a good idea to only reward those who are good at maths and English, despite, many people not studying something that revolves around maths and English? A cretin, perhaps?

The US has the finest University system in the world. So somehow these creative but linguistic and mathematical morons must slide in somehow? How does an artist with no ability at maths and English slide under your net? Or a musician? Or a sculptor, or a director?

 

[tribdog]

How does an artist with no ability at maths and English slide under your net? Or a musician? Or a sculptor, or a director?

by becoming a scientist. or an accountant, or a stock broker.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

by becoming a scientist. or an accountant, or a stock broker.

Can't they're rubbish at maths and English, you mean by going to some rubbish university and being unhappy at being forced into a career they have no interest in. Sounds a bit wasteful? hehe.

You don't need to be good at anything to be a stock broker to be frank. Does depend what you're doing though, that seems to me more about common sense than academic economic clout and mathematical skill.

 

[acolavin]

There's a lot of art in Physics. In fact, it was Feynman that said that an artist claims he can see beauty in a rose that a scientist cannot, but a scientist can understand the amazing patterns and complexity of processes required for there to be a rose, and therefor has a better understanding of the rose.

In any case, there is a nice compromise between doing what you want, and making a decent living. I'm lucky: I find physics fun, and should count my blessings.

Back on the subject, the ACT was a better test for me, despite having taken it only once, and the SAT twice. I hold a grudge against the exploiting monopoly that is College Board (they run the SAT). Honestly, I found the ACT easier. Its a long test, but chances are if you're decent at math & science, you'll look a lot better than on the SAT. The best bet is to take both!

Also, I believe you can have fees waived if you cannot afford them.
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/calenfees/feewaivers.html

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

There's a lot of art in Physics. In fact, it was Feynman that said that an artist claims he can see beauty in a rose that a scientist cannot, but a scientist can understand the amazing patterns and complexity of processes required for there to be a rose, and therefor has a better understanding of the rose.

In any case, there is a nice compromise between doing what you want, and making a decent living. I'm lucky: I find physics fun, and should count my blessings.

Back on the subject, the ACT was a better test for me, despite having taken it only once, and the SAT twice. I hold a grudge against the exploiting monopoly that is College Board (they run the SAT). Honestly, I found the ACT easier. Its a long test, but chances are if you're decent at math & science, you'll look a lot better than on the SAT. The best bet is to take both!

Also, I believe you can have fees waived if you cannot afford them.
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/calenfees/feewaivers.html

Yes I don't think that was quite what I was getting at. What I mean is you study for 18 years to have your future wealth decided by a test that doesn't even reflect what you want to study in any way shape or form, if it was me I'd move to another country to be frank. Luckily I'm good at maths not art especially or I'd be screwed over. Seems a bit pointless no? All it is saying is that if you want to study something that doesn't involve either of those, you are worthless.

 

[acolavin]

The SAT and ACT cover a huge amount of criteria, I agree. But if you suck at math, and you're applying to an art school, or music, then you're fine! Maybe the cream of the crop of schools (ivy league, etc) might reject you because you do badly on that part of the test, but generally schools don't just look at your SAT/ACT. They look at your extracurricular activities, and the classes you've taken, and the essays you submit. There is a huge amount of freedom in the states that isn't available in other more socialist countries.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The SAT and ACT cover a huge amount of criteria, I agree. But if you suck at math, and you're applying to an art school, or music, then you're fine! Maybe the cream of the crop of schools (ivy league, etc) might reject you because you do badly on that part of the test, but generally schools don't just look at your SAT/ACT. They look at your extracurricular activities, and the classes you've taken, and the essays you submit. There is a huge amount of freedom in the states that isn't available in other more socialist countries.

Why not just test people on the subject they are applying for? I mean if they're good at that, and it involves maths and English then they know there going to be a good student? Why just test for two factors out of hundreds of factors for thousands of subjects? Who thought that was a good idea, you don't get the best of the best, you get the best at SAT tests? What's the point of that? You might as well admit students to university based on their IQ, surely?

If you have an IQ of 150+ you get into the Ivy league. 130-150, the next league, 100-130, crappy Universities, less than 100 some sort of community college, or your blue collar, tough luck. Same difference no?

 

[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).