School, Education, Tests... GARRR!!

[Wil]

School

Seriously. I don't know how I'm going to get through another four and a half to six years of this. It's been eight weeks and I want to kill myself, and my classes aren't even that hard. It's not the hardness of it, it's the pointlessness of it.

I think I also hate people that love school because I think I think of them as useless bookworms.

To clarify: I love learning - I hate school. Simple.

[locke]

School

Seriously. I don't know how I'm going to get through another four and a half to six years of this. It's been eight weeks and I want to kill myself, and my classes aren't even that hard. It's not the hardness of it, it's the pointlessness of it.

I think I also hate people that love school because I think I think of them as useless bookworms.

To clarify: I love learning - I hate school. Simple.

from your link

We will urge large numbers of people who do not possess adequate ability to try to achieve the goal, wait until they have spent a lot of time and money, and then deny it to them.

somehow I don't think this person is referring to legacy students, which were the only ones who didn't possess adequete ability at USC. Somehow I think he's referring to all the scholarship students.

At least as far as that applies to elite universities. The counter argument is simple, he's of course referring to community colleges and low level state colleges and universities, naturally.

Hmm, this argument should be really very very familiar to anyone who knows about the history of american education...

Oh that's right, it's the same argument that was made by the nationwide efforts to prevent the building of high schools, to prevent high schools from serving a community's entire population indiscriminately, and was used to try to deny someone who graduated high school an equal admittance to universities private and public. And when they lost those battles they instituted the track and electives system in high school to ensure that the RIGHT PEOPLE would get the college preperatory schooling and the RIGHT PEOPLE would get the servant prepartory vocational schooling. This was supposedly to protect kids from themselves, it's a shame when the son of a plumber thinks he can become a banker and he needs guidance to be directed towards what his true capacity is, which is something like an automotive mechanic, the sort of job that is the only sort his intelligence and temperment can handle. The hardest part was convincing those poor ignorant parents of the servant preparatory students that this was a good things, the poor things (they're like children, really) wanted their child to get the best education possible, even if the educators and school board already knew that just because the child was their child and from that part of town that the child wasn't capable of learning like a child from the school boards part of town.

[Rei]

I struggle with getting good grades in school a lot, but almost everyone seems to assume I'm extremely smart. Statements like that one about adequate ability is just disgusting. Sure there are some people who go to university who would be happier and do better elsewhere because that is where their skills and interests lie (and in our current market, they'll probably go on to make more money than anyone with a BA). But to say that I am unable or disabled because my grades are not great instead of discussing how university is set up for certain learning styles and not others?

[VelvetElvis]

I can't really think of many degrees that don't require some sort of exam before entering the work force.

[Wil]

The way I read it was more that we urge a large number of students to believe they must go to college to do well but also to believe that going to college gives them the skills they need. That this person can go from knowing next to nothing to having the drive and understanding to make it in their selected field.

I think this is wrong.

I don't care how much you study or learn... there are just some fields that you will not do good in. Be it a lack of understanding or a lack of drive to do what you are learning... you just will not do good with that degree even if you trudged through the program.

Everyone knows how a hammer works: You swing the hammer down on a nail until it is flush with the frame. Simple. But not everyone can swing a hammer accurately or even well. You can learn to accurately swing that hammer and hit the nail, but you might realize you don't like swinging the hammer and thus you wasted all that time and money learning to swing a hammer.

An example I can think of is I knew a girl who really liked video games. She played them all the time. So, logically she decided that she wanted to make them for a living (cliche!). So, she went to a college that specialized in game-driven degrees (first error, but lets ignore that). She decided that she would like to double "major" in both programming and 3d animation. She spent TWO years learning programming and 3d animation, modeling, rigging, etc. She then realized that she completely hated programming (lets face it, you can teach a monkey the syntax but not everyone can grasp the logic or the sense required to make it work, let alone efficiently). She spent two years on wasted time and money before she realized that. Now, granted, she wasn't the brightest crayon in the box in the first place, but that's a good common example if you ask me.

I know not everyone knows what they want to do and thus spent more than four years working on their BA, and not everyone even uses their BA (Art History anyone?), but college is really quite poorly structured. Higher learning should be free and available to all that require it, but it should not be the corner stone of being able to make a living. It should not be "go to college, spend lots of money, [probably] accrue a debt, and then use that degree to make a good living".

I believe that was the basis of what he said. He wasn't saying that a large number of people are inadequate but that a large number of people are inadequate at what they are pursuing. Of course, I have no idea what he meant by "denying it to them". Unless he was speaking of once they have the degree it being utterly useless to them because they just suck. *shrugs*

Then again, maybe I didn't get that from the article and instead just projected my own beliefs upon it. Either way, this is what I believe.

Besides, many degrees don't have an "exam" before you can begin working with it. As previously stated: you can train a monkey to put in syntax in the correct order to do many different programming assignments. That does not mean you are good at or able to program, however. I know.. or rather hope.. that the BSC graduates here would understand what I mean. I have another friend who is graduating with a Bachelors in Electronic Engineering this year and he says that every time he had to work with a group chances are four out of the six (or more) in the group had no idea what they were doing. He often corrects teachers and has crappy teachers grading him down on his correct work. He helped a group of people set up a senior project which the DHS (or some such government agency) then took an interest in and funded another mock up of. They were completely clueless without my friend. He is an absolute wiz at electronic engineering and loves doing it. He is, without a doubt, the ideal candidate for such a degree and he agrees with me that school is complete s***.

I believe school is good. Great even. Everyone should strive to learn and maximize their potential. We are not, however, all born on a "clean slate" so to speak. Some of us have trouble learning and understanding things that others do not. Some are quick to understand, some are slow. Some are good at one thing, great at another, but are still completely clueless. Book smarts and street smarts. Readying about and applying are two different things. Doing both is optimal. Some of the smartest people I know made amazing grades but are still completely idiotic. Others I know were just decent at school but are the most logical, reasonable, understanding people I know. It's where the [myth/idea] that a C/B average student would make more money than an A average student. Those with lower grades tend to "apply" better than those with higher grades who tend to "memorize" or "study".

Eh, yeah. That was longer than I expected it to be and really quite unorganized. Some if it probably seems pretty silly too. Ah well.

I still hate school. >.<

[starlooker]

I'll be damned, Wil. You and I actually agree on something. Several things. While I absolutely disagree with the author of the article that certification tests are the ultimate answer, or that the BA should be utterly replaced as a standard, I agree with the majority of the points you make above.

There are a multitude of career theories and career counseling theories. Shall I name a few? Holland's Trait and Factor Theory, Theory of Work Adjustment, Social Cognitive Career Theory, Super's Life-Space, Life-Span theory, Gottfredson's Theory of Circumscription and Compromise, and Social Constructive Career Theory. And what are they all doing? Trying to figure out why different people do well in some jobs and not in others. There are individual differences in interests, aptitudes, and, yes, abilities. Why these differences exist is open for debate (and is addressed in some of the theories). However, there they are. And it's very sad when someone enters a field only to be denied because interest, aptitude, or ability weren't considered seriously.

I've seen various students with no people skills or aptitude for classwork enter the MA counseling program, get put on probation, get strung along, and eventually be forced to leave, and it is absolutely heartbreaking. That's a whole year of your life you can't get back, a waste of time, hell on self-esteem, and, oh yeah, several thousand dollars of debt with no degree to help pay it off. And here's the thing, the department was (usually) in my opinion, not wrong for kicking them out. However, in several instances it was indeed wrong for letting them in.

I do not believe certifications are the answer. For one thing, I know too much about test creation and test theory. Also, I belong to a profession requiring both extensive schoolwork and licensing exams. And, let me tell you, I'd trust my clients to someone who went to a good, accredited school and had those requisite experiences much faster than to someone with a high EPPP score. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense for some types of degrees (his statement that "certifications are available in social work" is so blind to the reality that passing a test does not a good social worker make it's laughable. But engineering or more objective types of careers I could see.)

Obviously, my opinion on the fix is better career counseling availability, of course Seriously, though, they should force you to sit down before you enter a school with someone (separate from admissions) who says, "This is the reality of it. Here are some similar alternatives. Here are some dissimilar alternatives. These are the pros and cons, and this is how it matches up with what we know about you. How do you see this working?" etc. Not just "test and tell" and not just cheerleading, "You can do whatever you put your mind to!" but a reality-based check on what this is going to mean to you.

Obviously, that's totally impractical. Still, though.

And, of course, some things you just won't realize you dislike until you spend some time doing it. Especially if you're in love with the idea of loving it. (See: Me + Academia.)

Not everyone is cut out to do just anything. And a BA (or MA or Ph.D) is one hell of a commitment and can be a sinkhole of debt. (And I worked in a large community university financial aid office, so don't tell me that's more affordable. Bullshit. The scholarships aren't comparable, and so the students there ended up leaving with approximately the same or greater debt load than I had at my elite private college). Not everyone can afford or wants to use college as a place to find themselves or broaden themselves. I mean, I did, I'm very pro-education, and I love the fact that I have a solid liberal arts background, but that's not a value I think everyone should have to have -- not for the kind of money it takes. There really does have to be a better way for this system to work.

Okay. Back to my daily scheduled routine.

Oh. To re-rail the thread: I hate it when I notice I just wasted a bunch of time I really needed.

[Wil]

I'll be damned, Wil. You and I actually agree on something. Several things.

Awesome.

[zeroguy]

First, we will set up a single goal to represent educational success, which will take four years to achieve no matter what is being taught.

Wrong. There's a guy at UVA that graduated in one year. I'll (probably) be graduating in three.

We will stigmatize everyone who doesn't meet the goal.

Wrong. Or, okay, "idiots will stigmatize...". If you do this, you have lost my respect.

She spent TWO years learning programming and 3d animation, modeling, rigging, etc. She then realized that she completely hated programming

How is that the uni's fault?

But yeah, higher education is broken, but you get used to it. I think not going to lectures whenever possible helps (unless you happen to have one of the three or so good profs at your uni). And constant bitching about classes makes for fun conversations with friends.

And that certification stuff was crap. There's already too much damn certification (in tech fields, anyway); I see too many idiots MCSEs and Sun certifieds these days already. They tend to work on the same concept as colleges: pay money, get cert. And some book-recitation, I guess.

[Wil]

Wrong. There's a guy at UVA that graduated in one year. I'll (probably) be graduating in three.

I happen to believe in a thing called free time. Makes life less crap. Why would I want to fill my life with more crap when I could instead stretch it out a bit and maybe breath some fresh air every so often.

I'd HATE to see that guys schedule though. If it takes 16-20 credits per semester for four years to get the required number of credits... then in one year you'd be doing... no facking way. I can't believe he took 48-72 credits a semester. That's impossible. He would have had to do 12+ hours of schooling seven days a week for an entire year to do that. He must have had the majority of his credits completed elsewhere. There is just no way.

How is that the uni's fault?

Eh, it really isn't. But, as starlooker so elegantly put it a college should perhaps spend a little more time helping GUIDE students in the correct direction. Perhaps start with more "If you don't feel it in the first couple of classes then perhaps it is time to transfer" speeches.

[zeroguy]

I happen to believe in a thing called free time.

Well sure. But I just mean it's not a requirement of the program to take four years. If you know enough and are dedicated enough you can cut down on that time quite easily. (At least, in the particular program I am enrolled in at the particular institution I am enrolled in.) You can get proficiency credit for a lot of stuff if you really want.

Eh, it really isn't. But, as starlooker so elegantly put it a college should perhaps spend a little more time helping GUIDE students in the correct direction. Perhaps start with more "If you don't feel it in the first couple of classes then perhaps it is time to transfer" speeches.

Okay, but at the same time for me in particular I kinda wish they'd stay outta mah face more, because I already knew where I wanted to be. The problem is that they have to make such things required, because they know that people are idiots and won't do them (and get screwed) unless they are required.

[locke]

Wil,

Those with lower grades tend to "apply" better than those with higher grades who tend to "memorize" or "study".

I've known people that prove and disprove each side of that statement. I've proven and disproven that myself. the issue, I feel, is much more complex than the article suggested or even so much as saying that higher education is broken. the problems are interlocking and strewn throughout the entire education system, from preschool on up. I'm trying to work around my buried rationalization to justify personal frustrations, its terribly easy to conflate anecdotal personal history with generalized ideas of education reform. That makes me cautious. I want to go railing against teachers who take a totalizing approach towards one way of learning or behavior, but I feel this generalization is quite useless on itself, and there's no way for me to back up such a strawman setup.

I think our whole education system is essentially sound and healthy but there are systemic issues that aren't life threatening, but that we treat as life threatening. There's no need to cut off a hand because someone has an ingrown fingernail, or to do a heart transplant because the current one doesn't perform like Michael Phelps'.

The solution is going to be as interlocking as the problems. Students have responsibility as well. I wouldn't have done well in a history of photography class if I hadn't come up with techniques to retain and apply information about individual photos, but a lot of students balked at the idea that they might have to know who made the picture and when and what makes it important. That was merely memorizing, useless details, to them, when in fact it was an essential part of the entire field, but in working out strategies and methods to acquire this information, I learned. The students job is not to sit in a classroom while being bored by the old yammering voice in the front of the room, a student has a side of the social contract of education to fulfill as well. And Teachers have a similar responsibility, though much more than a student because teachers have to be able to adapt to reach dozens of individual students each resisting instruction in unique ways. they have to help their students learn how to learn, in essence. Administration has an element as well. Good administration is a guiding force that can aid teachers, but misused it becomes an encumbrance to a well rounded education. Parents, naturally have a more intimate role than a teacher, in some ways they are superior to the teacher and in other ways they are more of an assistant to the teacher. Citizens that aren't parents also have a connection in the environment that they help foster both on a community wide and school specific level, the culture that students live in has an enormous impact on how and what and why they learn and their education is shaped. And we need to address what it is our schools are there for, both in stated intent and unstated intents. Part of the reason we got school that lasts for as many years as it does is because of child labor laws (which directly led to state/federal mandates on all children attending school for the first time in history), so there is an element built into the basic underpinnings of our school that suggests on a subliminal level that school is just keeping the competition segregated from the job market in order to keep the labor supply down. doubt it? how often did you hear friends describe school in terms associated with prison or even directly calling it a prison? How we even begin to address this one, I have no clue.

As for the issue of college itself or degrees in general...

What concerns me is the complicated resentments involved in getting a 'useless piece of paper' without acknowledging the complex meanings such a paper has in society and also resenting those meanings without seriously providing a better alternate than, 'because I'm different'. In a way, the guy arguing that we need to get rid of the BA was arguing that we replace it with the same thing which everyone agrees we won't call a BA. It's true there's a weakness inherent in a degree that doesn't proclaim to the heavens that you were at the top of your class (or at the bottom) that doesn't acknowledge in detail the level of work you managed or did not manage very well in pursuit of that degree, but that's sort of like saying a hiring formula that doesn't factor in race is flawed because, "I never would have hired him if I knew he was Black, there's no slack time on this job." or "I would have hired the asian for this computer job if I'd known he was asian". There's just as much benefit in that vaguary as there is drawbacks. Hell that's why there's an interview process, someone who didn't have the grades may damn well have the personality and aptitude to work much better for company A than someone who had much better grades, but at another company, B, those situations could easily be reversed. A degree gets your foot in the door, but it's up to your personality and fit with the company more than anything else. Some people want their academic achievements to give them a preferential treatment, I don't like this idea very much. The value of your degree and college experience is what you assign it, and that will come through in your interview.

[Wil]

zeroguy:

This is true. I'd actually be interested in seeing what the average stay at college for a BA is. I'd guess it would probably be five years just because it seems like a lot of students take a year to figure out what they want to do and/or take classes that aren't required and/or just mess around. But sure, I see no reason why you couldn't shorten that time.

I read once about a guy who used to polyphasic sleep (sleep 20 minutes every four hours) and managed to double major in 4 years.


locke:

Yeah, I agree for the most part. That is why I said "myth/idea". I've seen it proved and disproved. What I was really getting at though is that some people are good at one thing (or many things), while some people are just okay at them. I know people that can search for 10 minutes and not know how to find anything, and they've asked me and I've found it in 30 seconds. Some people just blow at using Google, while others have a gift.

The degree isn't totally useless. It shows that you have the... drive... to make it through those years of schooling. That you are a well rounded individual. That you know a little bit about many things and a great deal about your specific field. It also prints money. But, really, experience blows that degree right out of the water once you're IN the door. It is just a shame that people that are far more qualified for work who do not have a degree must settle for less... less money.. less opportunity.. etc.


I hate... eye boogers/eye sleep. It makes me feel dirtier than I am when I wake up.

[Eaquae Legit]

Does anyone mind if I export the school discussion to a new thread? It seems like we've got some good discussion going, and I'd love to see it continue, but maybe not on this thread.

[locke]

yeah, there's the drive factor, but I think more than anything else, a degree shows you're not 18. I jest, somewhat, but there is a huge difference between 18 and 22. Heck there's a massive difference, I feel, between 25 and 22. (on the other hand, one of my roommates, who is 23 and still in college acts like she's 17, but she's a spoiled rotten only child from OC, so, like whatever). One of the best bits of resume advice I got (from my supervisor when everyone was polishing their resumes after mass layoffs) was to put your school and degree at the bottom of your resume and delete the year of graduation off that line of information. All he wants to see is a college and a degree. All a year tells him is that you're inexperienced and probably fresh out of college (judging by the year) and he'll know to eliminate someone if he's not feeling like giving someone looking for a first job an interview.

[Slim]

Sure, it's nice to learn something at college. Even nicer to not blow all our money doing it. But the real reason we go is for the piece of paper -- the degree.

Why are we going? For most people, to get that high-paying salary. A college degree is one good way to shrink your job pool -- the people you are competing with to get a job. Your degree (or certifications, etc.) will give one more reason to your potential employer why they should hire you over the next guy.

[Wil]

When I saw this just now I was like "What.... when did I make a post named that?!".


locke: That is... amazingly simple but amazingly smart. Just don't include the year... jeez. So simple...

Slim: Isn't that sad though? Isn't that... dumb that people think that way? It's crazy to think that a monkey could work their way through a degree program and end up with a piece of paper but still only be a monkey.

Maybe from the above article we really do need a sort of "level of competence" test that is both outside the degree program but also connected? Sort of a way, designed for each specific degree, that employers can see where this newbie is at and base both their position and starting pay off of it?

Like the SAT's except less s*****. Less "memorize as much as you can" and more "show us what you can do". Because, really, the SAT's are designed where even an idiot can study hard for a few weeks and make a high score. Would want to avoid that with any sort of "competence" test. How they would do that I really don't know.

[Syphon the Sun]

I read once about a guy who used to polyphasic sleep (sleep 20 minutes every four hours) and managed to double major in 4 years.

That's not really necessary. I managed a double major and a minor in three years without the need for some crazy sleep schedule. (Granted, I entered college with 12 hours under my belt, already, but still.) I also happened to work at least two jobs (totaling 40-60 hours/week) throughout. And had I filed the correct paperwork on time, I would have picked up another major that would have meant absolutely nothing to me ("liberal studies").

I still found the time to write, watch all the new blockbusters, hang out with friends, party, take some internships, and spend time with my (now) wife.

Use your natural abilities and manage your time efficiently and you're set. Life is all about prioritizing.

On another note, Wil, you should look at the LSAT. It has everything to do with natural ability and nothing to do with memorizing content.

[locke]

I never memorized anything for the SAT, except maybe a math trick about adding up the ends of a number in a set and then mulitplying by 1/2 the total number to get the total of all the numbers added to each other. usually there's a word problem whose obvious solution is to add up all the numbers in a set (usually 1-50 or 1-100) for the correct answer. You'll notice that 1+100 = 101, 2+99 = 101, 50+51=101, so if you take 101x50 you'll get the total without having to type in 1+2+3+4+5...+99+100 into your calculator. What are you supposed to memorize for the SAT anyway? it wouldn't really help on the analogies as those are always different, and a good vocabulary from reading should get you pretty far in that section.

[Luet]

Yeah, I didn't memorize anything either. A few years after HS, I did teach SAT prep classes and there are some tips and tricks (kind of what you mentioned, locke) that you can use, especially for the math sections. The funny thing is that after I got all the training to teach the classes and learned all the tricks, they had us take the SAT and I got the exact same score that I had in HS.

[Wil]

Just out of curiosity, what did you guys get? I didn't study either and I got a 1300 but did AWFUL on my math. Just horrible. Something like a 460ish. At the time I only had a very basic pre-algebra understanding of mathematics. I took the required Nevada High School Proficiency Exam at the same time (what all kids must take to graduate high school) and got a 96th percentile on my reading, somewhere in the 80's for writing, and like 65th percentile on math. *shrugs*

I'll probably end up re-taking the SAT's here in a year or two.

[Valentine]

I got a 1410 SAT w/o studying.
I studied for my GMAT like mad though, being that I was out of school a year first. I got a 710 on that.

[locke]

um I got a 1390 as a jr and a 1510 as a senior, iirc. I think I had a 790 verbal and 600 math and then a 730 verbal and 780 math. On the ACT I got a 30 as a sophmore, a 33 as a junior and a 34 as a senior

I had to go digging through ancient files on my computer to find that. Still a bit annoyed I didn't get my top scores on the SAT during the same test, but a 1510 isn't anything to sneeze at and a very respectable score.

[Wil]

I actually went ahead and looked it up and I feel a little more dumb now. I have no idea where I pulled 1300 from. *shrugs* When you take all three math, reading, and writing I got a 1530. When you take only the writing and the math I got a *cringes a little* 970 total. I'm pretty horrible at writing in general, and as I said my math was awful. I'm working on it though! Honest!

[zeroguy]

According to my AIM logs, I got over 2000. I like to think I'm not the kind of person who'd study a lot for that... but damn I sound really stupid in those logs, so maybe I would have back then.

(I also appear to have no record of my score on my computer... except conversation logs from talking to people about it. And that took too long to find.)

Edit: What is with taking these multiple times? You seriously took the SAT I twice, and the ACT three times, locke? Once was way more than enough for me.

[locke]

well I needed the best scores possible because I was only applying to competitive private schools, up until my sophmore/jr year of high school my number one school was MIT. by the time I was a senior that had changed and my number one was USC, number two was Princeton and my number three was MIT. I applied to one other school, can't remember the name it was an engineering school in terre haute and then didn't ever do the 'safety' applications to the state universities I might go to if forced at gunpoint. when the rejections from MIT and Princeton came in I started getting nervous. Then the first letter from USC was a thin envelope as well, but that was just a note that said I didn't get in under my declared major (Cinema television production) but I might get in undeclared. a couple nervous days later I got a BIG envelope and felt much better. Then blanched at all the fees and deposits I would have to pay out of my pocket. I don't think I even told my parents about them, I just assumed they couldn't pay those things so I paid them all myself. In retrospect I have discovered I should have asked my parents for more money, like for money to pay for a plane ticket to USC for a scholarship interview, I'd already lived on campus the previous summer and didn't need to do orientation there. I didn't think they could afford the plane ticket, so I didn't ask them, and I couldn't afford it, and all I got was a 1/4 tuition scholarship.

and besides, I liked taking the tests, they were always interesting. I pissed off my brother when I got a 30 on the ACT as a sophmore, he had to take it four times to get the thirty, which he needed for a bright flight full tuition scholarship for a MO school.

[Rei]

All this tells me how glad I am that Canada does not have SAT, ACT, and why I'm not applying to school in the States so I don't have to take the GRE, either.

At this point I am so very sick of school and just trying to pass my classes and exams and projects at all. I've resigned myself to hoping to get into grad school based on my independent work and enthusiasm instead of my transcript.

[Slim]

Slim: Isn't that sad though? Isn't that... dumb that people think that way? It's crazy to think that a monkey could work their way through a degree program and end up with a piece of paper but still only be a monkey.

Yes, it's sad. Can't deny that. But hey -- it's a valid reason to choose one monkey over another.

But you are right though -- a competent manager should be able to look beyond the degrees and skill lists and find the potential employee that really is right for the job.

My Java teacher gave us an article on the topic from SD Times: "When Hiring, Smarts Beat Skill Lists" It begins with the question "How do you identify above-average Java programmers in a job interview?" And then proceeds to describe the typical (bad) approach, and what should be done instead. I thought it was really interesting.

I was the oldest in my family, so I didn't know about practice ACT tests, and the thought that I could retake it never crossed my mind. Nor did I know about some other test that my sisters took that got them nice scholarships.

I got a 27 overall. (Max for ACT is 36. What is it for SAT? Help! I need context! ) I didn't think it was that great, but it was 90th percentile.
The breakdown:
English: 24 (76th %ile)
Mathematics: 30 (96th %ile)
Reading: 22 (59th %ile)
Science Reasoning: 33 (99th %ile)

I didn't study/memorize. I never do. (Well, maybe for French)

[zeroguy]

(Max for ACT is 36. What is it for SAT? Help! I need context! )

The SAT max was 1600 until 2005 (the year I took it), when they added an essay-writing section. Now the max is 2400. The wikipedia article has an ACT/SAT conversion chart thing.