[Goose]

 It's really the only universal objective measurement.

Except it isn't clear exactly what it measures. I am "old" and remember back in 1966 the general belief was that the test was "objective" and that you couldn't study for it, so why bother? Subsequent experience demonstrates clearly that at a minimum taking lots of "practice" SAT test improves scores. Those individuals haven't suddenly become smarter or better educated. They have however learned to take SAT tests better than their peers. This practice often involves some significant financial commitment. This unfortunate fact has been used as a reason to abandon the test entirely. It is also undoubtedly true that some people are by nature better SAT test-takers than others who are in all other respects similar. That is a naturally occurring advantage that creates a bias in favor of people with that particular skill. The test result is therefore not actually measuring academic ability alone, but rather a combination of factors, one of which is test-taking ability.
 
That said, the SAT test is demonstratively predictive of college "success". One reason for that is that skilled test takers do better on tests than less skilled individuals. College involves taking lots of tests. However, there are undoubtedly some significant "objective" measures of other things that are predictive of college success present in the test as well. I think these tests should be required. I also think it is extremely important to realize that they have significant limitations.

[Goose]

 It's really the only universal objective measurement.

Except it isn't clear exactly what it measures. I am "old" and remember back in 1966 the general belief was that the test was "objective" and that you couldn't study for it, so why bother? Subsequent experience demonstrates clearly that at a minimum taking lots of "practice" SAT test improves scores. Those individuals haven't suddenly become smarter or better educated. They have however learned to take SAT tests better than their peers. This practice often involves some significant financial commitment. This unfortunate fact has been used as a reason to abandon the test entirely. It is also undoubtedly true that some people are by nature better SAT test-takers than others who are in all other respects similar. That is a naturally occurring advantage that creates a bias in favor of people with that particular skill. The test result is therefore not actually measuring academic ability alone, but rather a combination of factors, one of which is test-taking ability.
 
That said, the SAT test is demonstratively predictive of college "success". One reason for that is that skilled test takers do better on tests than less skilled individuals. College involves taking lots of tests. However, there are undoubtedly some significant "objective" measures of other things that are predictive of college success present in the test as well. I think these tests should be required. I also think it is extremely important to realize that they have significant limitations.