I have no idea. I recently took the ACT which may or may not be related whatsoever, and I got a 33. A 36 is perfect so I'm happy with what I got. I haven't any interest to go and find out if they're related, so I'll let the nitpickers tell me my score is meaningless.
I recently took the ACT which may or may not be related whatsoever, and I got a 33
Lucky..when I took it (last year) my calculator decided to not work. So I had to do the math section with no calculator assistance..which led to me only getting a 32 =/
I haven't any interest to go and find out if they're related, so I'll let the nitpickers tell me my score is meaningless.
Sadly, they aren't. If you pay attention to a bunch of parts in the test...you will find that there are some simple "rules" one could follow to help their score. To name a few: -The ACT tends to follow the "shorter is better" rule with sentence structuring, as long as the sentence is fully coherent -The specific info in the science part really isn't all that necessary at times..other than providing a means to present numbers and/or statistics -Before reading one of the works in the reading section, glance at the questions, so you have an idea of where to focus your reading for answers
Do you have a source on that? I'm curious as to whether this standardised test actually yields average differences in distribution per sex, given that a large meta-analysis on psychological parameters between sexes revealed there are no categorical differences.
One test said 135, another said 134. Yay! I'd qualify for Mensa.
Most IQ tests are given in elementary school when a child is clearly understand/ahead of the material/bored in class. That's anywhere from 7-11 years old usually. I suspect he falls into this age range.
Might as well rant about my schooling: After 2nd or 3rd grade, I was in a part-time gifted class. By 5th grade, I was about a year ahead in math. Around the end of 6th grade, there was a difficult proficiency test that only the 'smart' kids took (possibly an IQ test) and somehow I scored well enough to skip 7th grade math and go straight to 8th grade pre-algebra. But in 8th grade in algebra, the teacher had been trying to follow what the local high schools were doing, and she had selected a chapter that they skipped and skipped a chapter that they did. To make up for the mistake we had to cram a month's worth into 2 weeks, and she did a very poor job of explaining things, including the essential quadratic formula. I passed the class, but knew I didn't know nearly enough, so I chose to take it again in 9th grade, and thus was back at the 'normal' level. In 10th grade, I was basically teaching my geometry class, as the teacher would haughtily make glaring mistakes while teaching new material. From my 12th grade memoirs regarding that, "[The teacher] was, and from more recent reports, still is far too conceited and vainglorious to ever accept responsibility for her inability to properly function as an instructor." I was applauded for that statement. In 11th grade, advanced algebra was quite a bit tougher (hyperbolas, exponential graphs, etc). I knew I'd never need more than that, so instead of a higher class like trig, I chose college prep math for my senior year, which was review mixed with a few higher things. Around semester, students had been complaining that the teacher wasn't giving them enough/any time to work, so the teacher made it into more of a lab session than a class. I helped the class a lot by doing examples from the homework on the board nearly every day from that point. In my first semester of college last fall, I got over 98% overall in my Business Math class with 100% on the final and finished a week early.
