In my long career I've noticed a strong correlation between SAT scores and academic performance as well as job performance.
> I don't think the comparison to flight school is relevant enough in this context because it's a too different of a world to traditional academia.
My dad kept his flight school tests for flying all sorts of airplanes. They bear a lot of similarities with the SATs. There's a lot of math in there for things like fuel consumption, wind, maximum landing weight, glide distance, and so on.
For example, one day he was cruising along in his F-86 when the engine failed. he radioed the tower, and they told him to bail out. But he calculated his speed, altitude, distance, wind, sink rate, air templeratur, etc., and figured he could make the field after configuring the airplane for maximum glide. He made a perfect landing, but still got reprimanded for risking his life bringing the airplane back. But he had worked the math and disagreed that it was more risky to bring it in than bail out.
SAT tests intelligence (aptitude), not skills. Which is why it correlates with job performance, where intelligence can (over some time) matter as much or more than a starting point of relevant skills.
Look at this list:
Quadratic equations and functions (vertex form, roots, discriminant)
Polynomial operations and factoring
Exponential functions and growth/decay
Radical and rational expressions
Function notation, composite and inverse functions
Nonlinear graphs and their transformations
Standardized tests can be a great resource for assessing students, but they're not just testing for intelligence. Test-prep courses average increasing SAT scores by about 200 points. That's not because they're increasing the intelligence of the people taking them.
This is pedantic. Take it to the logical next step. Words and letters are symbols too. How would someone who can’t read do on the SAT?
> A mediocre student who had studied SAT-style questions for weeks leading up to the test would likely outperform a high IQ student who last solved those types of problems over a year prior.
Would make an interesting experiment, if it hasn’t already been studied. I would put my money on the lapsed high IQ student though.
Perhaps because they finally bothered to learn the material. I am skeptical that "strategy" makes much of any difference.
That's why hard questions exist.
In that same way, any test, including the SAT and GRE have flaws. They can be gamed in ways similar to LLM leadeboards: test prep makes you better at them. That's one of the main reasons universities moved away from SAT; they were afraid that it disenfranchised lower socioeconomic status students (and it does to some degree). The issue is that the test is positively correlated with success in an undergraduate program, so they threw out the baby with the bathwster. The real issue is that the SAT is not able to distinguish the capabilities among students to the degree it purports to.
And if you want an anecdote to match all yours, the first time I took a GRE practice test, I got a 3 on the writing. Not because I'm poor at writing, but because I didn't really know what they were looking for. After reading a test prep book, I got a 4.5 on my next practice test and a 5 on my final practice test. When I finally took the actual GRE, I got 6 on the analytical writing. Trust me, nothing changed in my writing ability over that time. In fact, I didn't even practice the skill except through those three practice tests. Clearly the test was not capable of determining my real ability to make an argument; it merely tested my ability to adapt my writing to what was supposedly being tested.
Interestingly, the vast majority of universities that got rid of the GRE requirements for PhD programs are not going back on that. Turns out that the students with the highest GRE scores are the ones most likely to drop out of their STEM PhD. [1]
[1]: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
Anyhow, the questions were all about freshman engineering knowledge.
Responding off the cuff without any reflection on the comment you're responding to doesn't move the conversation forward in any meaningful way. It just comes across as disrespectful.
The real issue is that standardized tests disenfranchise lower SES students less than any other metric.
Everyone who takes the SAT has to sit in the same room for the same amount of time answering the same questions. You can’t just pay someone else to take it for you (like essays) or select which difficulty level you take (like going to a prep school with grade inflation), or luck out in who your parents know (like recommendation letters).
Some may have better opportunities to learn the material, but, at the end of the day, you have to actually learn the material. There’s no getting around that.
As your own GRE anecdote shows: A little studying with some inexpensive books makes all the difference. Unless things have radically changed, a couple SAT or GRE test prep books are significantly less expensive than just one college textbook.
Bluntly, the reason SATs are better correlated to college performance than other measures are because of the reasons I mentioned. They strip away most of the privilege of coming from a high-SES family.
> In my long career I've noticed a strong correlation between SAT scores and academic performance as well as job performance.
A test doesn't need to test the relevant skills for that, it just needs to test _something_ that correlates with academic performance and job success.
The guy who got into my uni class as #2 in that exam dropped out after a few semesters because he couldn't beat calculus. The #4 took several extra semesters to graduate despite not working/not interning. Several others in the top third struggled through. We had _maybe_ 2 or 3 guys who straight-A'd the entire major.
I myself got in as #17 and still failed a few courses. Thankfully no one cared throughout my professional career.
On average. However, I've also had the experience that some of the most competent people I've known had rather difficult teens and twenties.
Hiring someone who flunked out of highschool, worked odd jobs for 10 years, then got a diploma and a degree is higher risk, higher reward. They are often times harder workers, unusual thinkers and more grateful for what they have.
My wife has anxiety, and the time-limited, high-stakes, pass-or-fail nature of a test makes it much, much harder for her to perform well. Outside that context, she's blazingly intelligent, performs very well under real-world high-pressure situations, is extremely diligent at getting any other assigned work done well on time, and has repeatedly written the guidelines for processes and procedures in her jobs.
I'm the opposite in many ways. I generally do somewhat poorly in a classic classroom environment, primarily due to ADHD hampering my ability to get homework done regularly and on time. However, I test amazingly well. I consistently finish in 50-70% of the time of other students, with scores in the high 90% range. (In my jobs, I think I do pretty well.)
Naturally the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", but I've known enough other people who fit both of our molds that I think it's fair to say that basing even a plurality of your assessment of someone purely on tests, especially standardised tests, is going to mislead you at least as often as not, in both directions.