There's a huge spectrum between "raw ability" and SAT/ACT. A good test would measure somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. It's not impossible to do, but is really hard.

The SAT (and other standardized tests) make a lot of sense when you're comparing people who have spent more-or-less the same amount of time and money preparing. They also make sense as one component of a holistic picture, weighed appropriately.

The the true value of these tests for predicting potential is a lot less useful otherwise.

The huge problem, from a predict-success perspective, is that you can't tell the difference between:

1. a brilliant person;

2. a kind-of-smart person who's very driven; and

3. an average person with no work ethic who was forced to sit with a tutor for many hours each weekend.

> Then why in the world would you think legitimate education shouldn't boost SAT scores?

It should. That's what the SAT is for. As I've said twice now, the SAT is a well-designed test. I don't think the SAT should change. I'm just now sure how useful it is, especially as a holistic measure.

To be really concrete about this: colleges should shy away from the SAT because I won't be holding those students hands forcing them to study and custom-designing their course of study at their first job!

At some point soon after graduating college, the hand holding disappears and you sink or swim. Academic preparation helps, but work ethic and the ability to learn on your own is really important. Colleges are, or at least should be, attempting to select people who are more likely to "swim".

If I were a college admissions officer, I'd probably weigh "good enough scores to know you're not an idiot, plus a compelling demonstration of grit and work ethic" WAY over "great scores with no demonstration of independent drive".

(FWIW I think we're now completely disconnected from the actual topic of the article, since that's not what the hardship score is measuring)