[jacket3ree]

 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.

I did a lot better in college than the SAT said I would.  The ACT begged to differ, however. I remember taking the PSAT and maybe kinda sorta reading up on how the SAT worked. But I never "studied" or took a prep class. I took the SAT in one of my high school's classrooms on a very cold Saturday morning. I don't remember the month - probably late October or early November, but since it was Saturday and cell phones weren't invented yet, no one could get someone out to turn on the furnace or the lights. So we Abe Lincolned it in our Carhartts and down vests. 

My college counselor, Bob Brown, was a man I met one time, when I gave him a list of schools where he needed to send my transcripts. Nice enough guy and I was never in trouble. He asked me to 'hold on a sec' while he rummaged in his file for a stapled list many pages long. Oh crap, I knew it, they keep a list!  He thumbed down and said 'Nope, you'd be the first kid from here to ever attend Georgia Tech. That's something.  Good luck!'  I think the novelty of that was why my story didn't turn into Orange County.  In any event, I heard back from Tech before even Mines, Ft. Collins, or Boulder and was on a plane by January to check it out.

I probably did a lot better in grad school than the GRE said I would. Stales (Charley Staley) woke me up from a stupor after a monster house party the night before and reminded me we needed to get our butts down to Georgia State for the GRE. That was the extent of my preparation.

I have better SAT stories with my daughter. Broke 90 mph on 101 going from Mountain View High School up to San Carlos and back after she realized she forgot her ticket when we were in the parking lot. You sweat your kids' lives more than your own.

College admissions is a weird deal. We just learned that UC Irvine is harder to get into than Stanford and I know one case in which UC San Diego was harder to get into than the Naval Academy. Or UC Berkeley.

[jacket3ree]

 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.

I did a lot better in college than the SAT said I would.  The ACT begged to differ, however. I remember taking the PSAT and maybe kinda sorta reading up on how the SAT worked. But I never "studied" or took a prep class. I took the SAT in one of my high school's classrooms on a very cold Saturday morning. I don't remember the month - probably late October or early November, but since it was Saturday and cell phones weren't invented yet, no one could get someone out to turn on the furnace or the lights. So we Abe Lincolned it in our Carhartts and down vests. 

My college counselor, Bob Brown, was a man I met one time, when I gave him a list of schools where he needed to send my transcripts. Nice enough guy and I was never in trouble. He asked me to 'hold on a sec' while he rummaged in his file for a stapled list many pages long. Oh crap, I knew it, they keep a list!  He thumbed down and said 'Nope, you'd be the first kid from here to ever attend Georgia Tech. That's something.  Good luck!'  I think the novelty of that was why my story didn't turn into Orange County.  In any event, I heard back from Tech before even Mines, Ft. Collins, or Boulder and was on a plane by January to check it out.

I probably did a lot better in grad school than the GRE said I would. Stales (Charley Staley) woke me up from a stupor after a monster house party the night before and reminded me we needed to get our butts down to Georgia State for the GRE. That was the extent of my preparation.

I have better SAT stories with my daughter. Broke 90 mph on 101 going from Mountain View High School up to San Carlos and back after she realized she forgot her ticket when we were in the parking lot. You sweat your kids' lives more than your own.

College admissions is a weird deal. We just learned that UC Irvine is harder to get into than Stanford and I know one case in which UC San Diego was harder to get into than the Naval Academy. Or UC Berkeley.