<p>SAT I scores predict more than how you'll do in freshman year of college (at least in some fields). Consider this recent ad in HotJobs.com for an entry-level investment banking position: "Minimum expectations include an overall score of 1350 on the SAT's...You will be required to provide official scores and transcripts, so please do not respond if you do not meet the aforementioned requirements." Ouch.</p>
<p>Do you think it's completely unfair that a standardized test taken in 11th or 12th grade solely for college admission will follow people through college and into the workplace? Does the cut-off score of 1350 prevent otherwise qualified candidates from pursuing this high-paying job? And since disadvantaged minorities tend to score lower on average, does this policy discriminate against them? Or is it an accurate way to measure performance/predict success?</p>
<p>Also I'm wondering--do employers in fields other than investment banking require you to send SAT I scores? For example, since I'm interested in teaching at the secondary level. If I apply for employment at a good quality high school, would my 1330 (V: 750, M: 580) be considered OK? Would they use these silly cut-offs? (Keep in mind that competition for spots will be greater when I seek employment)</p>
<p>Disadvantaged minorities get lower scores because they aren't as strong in math and english. If anything, allowing disadvantaged minorities to ignore that requirement would be descrimination.</p>
<p>It just seems absurd to me that a college admissions test that you took in 11th or 12th grade should determine your future career. The SAT/ACT should be used in undergraduate admissions, and NOTHING ELSE. Otherwise, it would be an abuse of the test.</p>
<p>My Opinion: Everyone is a hypocrite at heart. Face it, if you had a 1600 (and I'm sure many people do) you would fight tooth and nail to make the SAT become an important part of job resumes. However in comparison to the rest of the USA, very few people get 1600's or even high scores for that matter (around 1400+)</p>
<p>Just like Affirmative Action (which I vehemently oppose)</p>
<p>Hey lol, I knew those scores had to be useful for something! But really it's a good idea, for SAT's are in fact a decent intelligence indicator, but a low score should nonetheless not keep you out of the job.</p>
<p>hey i lovetocamp AA is a huge argument even in the communities it helps, specifically in the black community. Colin powell supports it. A black author wrote a book against affirmative action, I think his name is clarence thomas. He says that AA is a result of guilt about slavery, and there is something similar in another, Asian, country.</p>
<p>Any employer who looks at SAT scores when hiring a college graduate is very shady (and very stupid) IMO. If they are so naive as to think that someone's SAT scores mean jack....</p>
<p>I believe Google required its employees/job candidates to sumbit SAT scores a few years back and they still do - the average score or at least, the minimum score to employed was around 1400.</p>
<p>Consider this recent ad in HotJobs.com for an entry-level investment banking position: "Minimum expectations include an overall score of 1350 on the SAT's...You will be required to provide official scores and transcripts, so please do not respond if you do not meet the aforementioned requirements." Ouch.</p>
<br>
<p>One opinion from the peanut gallery ... for all the folks who favor grad inflation this is one of the ugly side effects of grade inflation. If all the students from a school have virtually the same grades and if grades across the country are essentially menaingless and if I am an employeer I can not differentiate between applicants ... so they are falling back on a process that does differentiate among the applicants. Personally, I think this is a pretty bad way to differentiate but they need to do something to seperate the 91% of Harvard graduates who graduate with honors.</p>
<p>In the past the SAT had not been as vitally important as it is now, or has been in the last years. So employers may not have taken in, or cared.</p>
<p>Now, remember, we have employers who did take it, see it as vitally important, and are probably very proud of their scores. So it gets used when employing people. I suppose it sucks if you dont do well... but I guess the places that use high standards, like Google, want only the brightest and the most dedicated to learning to be a member of their company. I mean, have you seen the introduction test for that company? ****e. My dad graduated college with a economics degree (because he thought he could do something more with it than a math degree), has been a math nerd all his life, and took huge amounts of math and logics courses, was used as a test subject when they were first developing the tests we think of as everyay- SAT, LSAT, so forth. And he couldnt do half of the things. It was crazy.</p>
<p>I'm not sure how widespread this will become. It strikes me as necessary only for the most advanced jobs. I know people who are making 250,000 a year with a high school diploma. Its all about you.</p>
<p>It is just unfair that an otherwise qualified person with excellent college grades, recommendations, interpersonal skills, and enthusiasm for the field would be turned down for getting a 1340 or something like that. Who would think that getting one measly quantitative comparison question wrong would determine your future?</p>
<p>Also, would high schools who are hiring teacher also use these ridiculous cut-offs? Is a 1330 too low for a secondary school educator or any similarly respectable career?</p>
<p>ilovetocamp, vehemently oppose aa huh? please state your argument, i'd LOVE to hear this...btw, i am totally pro-affirmative action and i have debated this topic throughout new jersey in practice debates, cuz im the debate captain of my school bla bla bla, but yea please, explicate, what is your arguement?</p>
<p>"ilovetocamp, vehemently oppose aa huh? please state your argument, i'd LOVE to hear this...btw, i am totally pro-affirmative action and i have debated this topic throughout new jersey in practice debates, cuz im the debate captain of my school bla bla bla, but yea please, explicate, what is your arguement?"</p>
<p>Since no one's posted any arguments, I'll start:</p>
<p>1) Compensation Unfair - reverse discrimination
2) Diversity Argument Invalid - AA doesn't help increase diversity; people should be qualified and meet the standards required of any applicant applying to X college; many qualified non-white students already there
3) Color Blind - the only way to make our society not racist, and instead become color-blind is to institute color-blind policies
4) Favors unqualified candidates over qualified candidates many times</p>
<p>On a side note, I must say that I myself am not white, and therefore have no bias against immigrants or non-whites. So therefore, none of these comments should be taken as if I meant them in a racist or overbearing manner.</p>
<p>"Personally, I think this is a pretty bad way to differentiate but they need to do something to seperate the 91% of Harvard graduates who graduate with honors."</p>
<p>TBH, I don't think employers care about grade inflation at Harvard. If you get into Harvard then you kick ass. Grade inflation doesn't mean squat. End of discussion.</p>