All the best colleagues I've worked with aced the SAT and/or other standardized tests. I would hate to not be able to refer to them while interviewing job candidates.

Honestly, standardized test scores and some case study type questions would be sufficient to make a decision (along with 1 on 1 convos). I hope a decision like this opens a channel for smart people to get to employment without having to go to school or spend as much time in it.

Edit:

Some people are commenting that relying on scores from years ago can unfairly disadvantage people who have improved since then, and can generally be misleading. I agree with that.

There should be a robust ecosystem of aptitude tests that are generally accepted, are as unbiased (culturally) as possible, and that can be retaken at any time.

I think it's developing, as I've seen some examples of this in the hiring process.

You......ask what people got on the SATs in your job interview?

One place I worked at did, by policy (D. E. Shaw & Co.).

It was also the place with the densest collection of high-achieving, highly intelligent colleagues that I’ve ever experienced.

DE Shaw rejected me after I submitted my SATs (not once, but twice).

What even is the point of living if society deems people like me to be inherently inferior for life?

Almost no place has this (fairly pointless IMO) policy in place. How predictive is the SAT test I took when I was 16 to my performance on the job a decade later?

You can actually take the SAT at any age, so I'd say there's no reason to not try and get a high score.

+1

You went to MIT so fairly predictive I think, as you just said it was the densest region of talent you’ve ever seen.

If you saw my resume you’d understand how hopeless it is for people like me. It’s depressing.

For my first jobs out of college, I listed my SAT scores.

EDIT: Don't understand the downvotes. I went to a top liberal arts college and they told us to, if it was over a certain number. It worked broadly speaking.

I did too. It specifically came up in interviews as a reason they brought me in.

Well, it is basically an IQ test.

In other words, an SAT score is most meaningful at the low end of the range?

Google used to ask college candidates (I was asked). I don't know if they still do.

> All the best colleagues I've worked with aced the SAT and/or other standardized tests

I did not do well on my SATs (1500/1600) - do you think there's any way to make up for this? Or am I supposed to be as unimpressive as I was at 17 forever?

I believe 1500/1600 is top 2%, so it's weird you'd consider that not "well" to me.

It’s not good enough to get into any top school, and top 2% is simply not good enough when it’s effectively the same as the top 20%.

It's enough to get into any state school, and many people in places like MIT/Harvard/other-here have scores around yours.

It's definitely in range [1]. You could also consider retaking it, or taking the GMAT, LSAT, or GRE.

[1]https://www.thoughtco.com/sat-scores-for-ivy-league-admissio...

That range includes triple legacies, Jared Kushner types and recruited athletes. I doubt it’s applicable to people like me.

What world do you living where people share or remember their high school test scores?

I've almost never heard of anyone caring about their SAT scores since freshman/sophomore year of college. The only people who still talk about them are the people who did really well on them complaining that they didn't help get them jobs once they graduated.

Each individual is a minority of one. Forced equality is oppressive at individual level.

Framing the issue as one "foreign" group "taking over" the school is interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_foreigner

Red herring or strawman.

No one asserted that

In fact, the person you responded was asserting that this course of action is meant to deny access to members of certain groups because of their membership in a group, not that they are entitled to access because of their membership in a group.