For those (like me) who immediately wondered if SATs correlate with socio economic status rather than IQ, this Slate article covers some of the debate about standardized tests and points to meta studies. SATs do track IQ and predict college success, but social emotional skills, grit, and other factors also count. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...

That's a very interesting article. One of the points that really stood out to me, despite the present but weak correlation with socioeconomic status, is that it still serves as a very strong springboard for gifted children out of poverty. The article mentions that the SATs can be the bane of upper middle class parents trying to get their children into good schools (test prep works, but only goes so far), while even kids with a lower SES get perfect scores on the SAT.

I can easily imagine that abject poverty would mess with SAT scores (or probably even prevent someone from taking the SAT), but for the majority of the country I would expect the SAT levels the playing field rather than hurting it. For example, I live in a rural town in Missouri. No one here is rich, but the majority of the town is not in poverty. I can't think of a better way than the SAT for a precocious child here to get into a top-tier school.

Exactly. There are many schools (in the east in particular) where privileged children end up who didn't get into the Ivy League, Stanford, U of Chicago or U of Michigan.

The value of the alumni and professional network of these lesser schools, as well as the brand name, is lower than the top tier schools, but the parents often did attend a more elite school, and their network offers inter-generational benefits.

It's interesting that state schools like Michigan accept a large number of less competitive in-state students, thereby providing the sort of springboard you mention, while also attracting a top tier of students that is on par with those attending Ivy League schools.

For what it's worth, when I saw that you looped in U of Michigan with the ivy leagues I thought you must have attended U of M. I don't view U of M with anywhere near the same level of prestige.

FYI, some non-trivial bodies have ranked U of M as the top public university in America.

It's not illegal, it's just considered defacto discrimination and you have to prove it's actually beneficial.

There's no reason that you couldn't be sued the same way if you're only hiring from a certain university and that leads to excluding people from a protected class.

You can use "disparate impact" doctrine to argue that just about anything is illegal. It's pretty hard to full proof yourself against that.

But there's a big difference between something that existing legal precedent has ruled as strongly likely to be illegal for hiring (IQ testing), and a currently widespread hiring practice that may at some future date suffer the same fate (hiring from particular schools). The legal risk of the former is extremely high, while you would have to be extraordinarily unlucky to suffer damages from the latter. Even if the courts do so rule in the future, you'd have to win (lose?) the lottery and be the one or two companies that get taken to court in that test case.

Interestingly the NFL uses the Wonderlic test.

From what I understand SAT grades what you've learned and ACT grades what you are capable of learning. At least that's what I understood years ago.

Edit: Oh yea, don't believe me? Here's a link. Apparently I got it backwards though. :)

http://www.educationplanner.org/parents/act-sat-scores.shtml

>Hiring based on IQ tests is illegal

Citation pls?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.

It would be legal if you can prove in court that IQ is reasonably related to the job.