What's the difference between the ACT and SAT?

IIRC, SAT is verbal and qualitative, with scores for each ranging from 200 to 800.

When I took the ACT, it had very similar questions, but they were broken down into four groups, and the "social studies" questions were primarily reading comprehension. The ACT has scores from 1 to 36, IIRC. You get scores in each section, plus the average.

Of course, you'll get a better response from someone who actually took either of those tests sometime this century

 

No one at my high school took the ACT, but that was mostly because most of us were applying to UCs, and I don't think the UCs care about the ACT at all. Look into this with where you're thinking of applying to colleges--for all of its faults, the SAT is the gold standard, and you're much more likely to find a school that isn't impressed with a good ACT score than you are with a school that isn't impressed with a good SAT score.

Plus, the SAT has all of the SAT II tests, the subject tests. When I applied to UCs, you had to have taken three SAT IIs. Don't know what the requirement is like now, however.

 

From what I've found, and have been told. Schools in the SouthEast use the ACT, whilst schools everywhere it (seemingly to me!) treat it as a lesser to the SAT. I took both. Actually if you wanting to go to an SEC school. You can get an ACT equivalent of the SAT and just take the SAT.

 

the midwest schools are big on the ACT. I have never heard of anybody outside this area really using the ACT. I was a fan of the ACT above the SAT. Of course, I'm biased since I received such a good ACT score that I pretty much got to blow off the SAT (would have done much had I studied).

 

Top schools don't like ACTs, they like SATs. Midwest uses ACT as Wingtips said.

 

I assume your insinuating that MSU isn't a top school.

 

ACT is also widely used throughout the South. I didn't bother taking the SAT.

 

yeppers. southeast schools use it. i took the SAT, my husband took the ACT.
from what i've heard (loosely) is that the ACT is more friendly to the english/history crowd.

 

I took the ACT, because that is what a majority of Southerners take. I never took the SAT, so I can't compare the actual tests, but most schools take both now, except for those that want you to take the SAT II tests. I'm thinking of some Ivy League schools, and perhaps a few other big boys, that require the SAT II's, and thus the SAT.

 

While it is true that it is mostly logic/reason test, in order to put those skills to work on the test (at least on the verbal section) you have to have a good base of vocabulary. Understanding/identifying the relationship of two analogy pairs requires logic, but knowing which of those pairs match that relationship requires knowledge of the words being used. In other words, can't put the logic and reason to work on the verbal if you don't know what over half of the words on the test mean. Maybe this isn't such a huge deal at the SAT level, but it is for the GRE's, which is a very similar test. So it would be of some help to brush up on some SAT-level vocabulary.

 

There are no analogies on the SAT.

I tutor students for both tests, so let me try to sum it up:

1) The ACT is considered a more "academic" test, while the SAT is a logic/reasoning test. As an example, the ACT math sections does not give you all the formulas, while the SAT math sections give you all but two of the big ones (slope and formula of a line, for the record).

2) Most schools around the country will accept either test. Some will show a slight preference for one over the other, but only the odd school will not accept either test.

RS

 

There are a couple of theories floated about. The main one that I've heard is that both the analogies and the quantitative comparasons ("Which is bigger: Column A or Column B?") are easy problem types to tutor, so dumb rich kids were doing as well as or better than smart poor kids.

But again, that's hearsay.

What is known is that it was the UC that was behind the big changes. They basically threatened to stop taking the SAT, and that's way too big a testing block for the SAT to lose.

RS

 

Well I'll be dammed. I did not know that.

Right now I am practicing for the GRE and the analogies questions are killing me. I thought I had a decent vocab, but apparently not...

 

I wasn't really insinuating anything, although I wouldn't have called the school where I did my undergrad a "top school" either (and for the record, MSU isn't). I don't even remember if I bothered sending my ACT score to Columbia, Brown or U of Chicago. They were interested in my SAT score, not my ACT score.

 

Your right, not in my field definatelly. But good enough I suppose. The "big" schools I sent my ACT (Standford and Duke) didn't care one way or the other. TBH these tests are not that important (as long as you make decent) because I had the best ACT in my school but wasn't close the valedictorian and got much less money from the school I am at now than others who actually tried in high school but made lower than me on standardized tests.

 

Good thing you arent' taking the MAT (Miller Analogies Test) instead of the GRE then!

 

ugh, our valedictorian and our salutatorian got 1600 and 1599 on their sat's, respectively. i think they both ended up going to MIT. they were both gits.

 

Well, the tests are very important to differentiate people with high GPAs. The GPA's the first thing. Its the same thing for grad schools.
Well, that simplifying things, but has a lot of truth. By the time you're applying to grad schools, what you majored in, your college and other factors can overcome poor grades. Very hard to do that for undergrad.

 

What kind of tests substitute for SAT/ACt then? I know your a Lawyer, but would it be (for instance) the FE (Fundamentals of Engineering) which every graduating senior takes? Or equivalent for other majors (I do not know if others do the same)