DMD should've gotten a perfect on the vocab section with that fancy language he's throwing around
Anyway (I'm gonna be brutally honest here so feel free to judge)
SAT (600-2400 version pre 2016)
Took a prep class, took the test twice. First time I was in upper 1700's second time I was in the mid 1800's. Did exceptionally better in non-math sections. Unfortunately it is partially an aptitude/IQ test so I didn't bother trying to retake it. Mediocre score all-around.
ACT: 29
Took it one time. I gave myself the weekend before to prepare with some books from the library and somehow pulled off a (percentile speaking) better score than I did on the SAT with class prep and PSAT exposure. To me this doesn't make any f*cking sense as the math section on the ACT is harder than the SAT yet I scored a 30. Ironically enough, reading, which is what I performed best at on the SAT I performed the worst at on the ACT with a score of 26/27. I don't remember what I got on the other sections.
In the end it doesn't really matter though (to an extent).
Next up is the LSAT.
I am from Illinois, and we take the ACT. I got a 36.
In fact, the year I graduated, my friend Josh, the class valedictorian, and I all got perfect scores on the ACT.
My class rank is only in the 99th percentile though.
Even though I had a weighted 5.0 GPA, I began accumulating high school credit in middle school, so I did not have a full course schedule in my senior year.
Since my school factors credit hours into the ranking calculation, I got bumped along with some of the other AP students.
It did not hurt my admissions, grants, or scholarships though.
We never had the SATs where I live. We have an SAT equivalent (the NCEE). Where I scored in the top 99++ percentile (.01%). I was a HUGE slacker tho. Never studied, barely did homework and was more interested in AD&D, PC games and anime. -_-
My wife got a 1450 (or 1460, she can't exactly remember). Her math dragged her score down a bit (she always hated the maths). Mid 90's SAT.
In the UK we don't have SAT we have O-level (now GCSE) taken at 16 and A-levels, Exams where you mainly write essays based on two years of study beyond O-level in chosen subjects, they are narrow, focused exams but still harder than AP or IB in each subject. I took my maths O-level a year early and did further maths in the 5th year (now grade 11) I did 10 O-levels in total, and my lowest grade was a B in only one Exam, this is in the days before A star. I got three straight A's at A-level again this is in the days before A star. In those days O and A levels had no coursework element, unlike US high schools, no continuous assessment like GCSE or High School pass and were entirely on the exam.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am from Illinois, and we take the ACT. I got a 36.In fact, the year I graduated, my friend Josh, the class valedictorian, and I all got perfect scores on the ACT.
I remember a conversation we had about this from almost exactly 10 years ago and this is what you said:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Of my class of approximately 600 students, only one student scored higher than I on the ACT. He received a perfect score, I missed one question in Mathematics, and my friend, Josh, missed one question in English.
Edit - I also remember you telling me about the 5.0 thing but I don't remember when you told me that. hmm
Originally posted by The Ellimist±only so much. ACT isn't very logic based like the SAT, so I wouldn't associate it with IQ. It comes down to how much you remember from your classes coupled with your ability to work efficiently.
The SAT/ACT is correlated with IQ but you can still increase your score by quite a bit.
The SATs were always much more correlated with IQ than the ACT (Idk about the new version). Analogies, quantitative reasoning, analytical reading; there's only so much a person can prep for.
Now if you want something that's pretty much an IQ test, try the LSAT. Not a whole lot of prep material even exists for it lol. It's nothing more than a whole bunch of logic games in a short period of time.
1. The LSAT is not an IQ test.
Contrary to popular belief, the LSAT does not measure intelligence. Therefore, the test does not render those with higher scores smarter than those with lower scores. The LSAT is one of many factors relied upon by law schools to predict a person's chances of first-year success. The LSAT's predictive value is limited, however, and small variations in scores are insignificant.
http://www.nova.edu/career/resources/law_school_10_lsat_facts_you_should_know.html