[Timber Rattler]

Not surprisingly those who score a 1600 do better than those who score 800.

That's not necessarily true. I've known 1600 scorers who washed out and also 800 or below scorers who did just fine.

The tests are subjective and only measure how well prospective college and grad students can take subjective tests.

[irish guard]

I'll buy some of your argument, but I've known the 800 types and they were terrible students. I've known 34 ACT takers and while they weren't great students they got 3.0+GPAs and are doing well in the real world.

You're all missing the point. With grade inflation in high school, when all the little Johnnys get. 3.9-4.0, the only way for a college admissions team to differentiate students is to look at these standardized tests.

To suggest the tests are worthless is a bit of hyperbole.

[Prolixus]

“The tests are subjective and only measure how well prospective college and grad students can take subjective tests. “

What objective criteria can schools use to screen applicants?

[staytrue]

“I’ve known 1600 scorers who washed out and also 800 or below scorers who did just fine”

Your particular line of work sounds very bureaucratic. In which case, “the wash outs” would be anyone who could not “conform to the norm”.

How do I know this. I scored about 1500 but only because I could interpolate answers. You used the term “wash out”. I infer that you operate in a very rigid work environment.

I went to one of the worst high schools ever. I graduated knowing nothing. But I could do well on these tests because they usually give you the answer in the question. Just as you have here.

Conforming to the norm is a certain type of talent that is prized. It is not something the SAT measures though.

[Durus]

"That's not necessarily true."

But it is generally true, and it being generally true makes the test worthwhile.

How is an SAT "subjective"?! Any measure uniformly applied is the definition of objective. We could argue about the usefulness of the data being measured but that doesn't make it subjective measurement.

[Hootowl99]

You are describing outliers with your example and this is of course accurate. However, their will be few 800 scorers that succeed in STEM areas and few 1600 scores that will aspire to education and humanities.

With regards to taking broad tests like SAT/ACT, there is indeed a strategy that increases the chance of bumping the score higher. It’s a bump though and improbable to achieve a radical improvement. It largely gives you the time to work through the things that are the hardest or most unknown to the person. I have worked with my kids and now my grand kids to teach this to them. It doesn’t take a monster big test for usage but applies to any test, essay or multiple choice.