The SAT and ACT are essentially worthless.
The SAT is a solid predictor of college success. Most of the critics think it's anti-egalitarian (which it is) and "racist" (which it isn't), disregarding the fact that it does pretty much what it's supposed to do.
I base my opinion on my and my daughter's very extensive experience (we went to the same high school that emphasizes SATs, about 30 yrs apart). I also used to rent from a lady that worked for ETS, but she was quite close mouthed about the whole thing. :-)
In arguments with several of the self-proclaimed intelligentsia of the left it has become clear they are unable to do grade school math. No joke - a simple multiplication problem where you had to figure out from words what to put in a calculator was beyond their abilities.
So its no surprise they do not understand science, economics, etc. Yet to listen to them they will loudly tell you how much smarter they are then you and how you are wrong.
The old SAT testied analytic ability combined with comprehension of ones core knowledge. A good prepper could predict within 40 points either way how a student would do on each section at least 90% of the time. And it did tie in with college success in programs that dealt with those analytic skills. What's become less relevant is needing to have analytic skills to survive college in some areas of endeavor.
Students are given standardized testing so much now, starting in preschool, that these tests seem less relevant. The students fate has been pretty much determined by grade 6 or so. JMHO
Early in my adult life I was a college admissions counselor. ACT and SAT scores were the single best predictor of college success, particularly in academic areas like mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. Students with good board scores who showed evidence of having decent study skills were very likely to succeed in college.
For other areas like communications, sociology, anthropology, black studies and elementary education the board scores were less important. For those areas evidence of good study skills were the best predictor of success.
There were always exceptions, but students with lousy board scores and poor study habits had a low chance of success. (I have avoided the less polite ways of saying that.)
Board scores can’t account for motivation. Some students are bright, test extremely well but are not stellar performers academically because they’re unmotivated. Other students aren’t quite so bright, are mediocre on their board scores, but are extremely motivated and make up for it with hard work and determination.
Of the two, the hard workers with the lower implied IQ are more likely to find success in life, in my observation, and I was one of the bright ones who tested extremely well but was a mediocre student outside of coursework that I really enjoyed. Managed to keep myself on the honor roll but only just enough effort to do so.
Yep. They are written by low IQ liberals.