Jonri – thank you for the explanation. It certainly makes sense for a large employer to use aptitude testing as a way of determining best placement for employees – it benefits both employer and employee.
But I agree with others that it’s not particularly helpful for teenagers, particularly if the result is going to be – as it is in OP’s case – that the kid does pretty good in just about everything. Somehow I think that in those cases the array of talents would be apparent to all before the test – so it’s money being spent to confirm what is already known. I do see it as being valuable in cases where there are significant learning differences or problems – for example, a kid who is on the autistic spectrum – and the goal is to help determine the niche where the young person can succeed. In those cases it might also be important to be able to document those narrow talents.
I don’t fault OP for paying $$ unnecessarily for something the daughter wanted - I certainly have done the same, though with eyes wide open knowing that the $$ was not necessarily spent for the purpose that it was advertised.
I just think it’s a problem if the results end being used in a negative way – for example, a kid who wants a career in music giving up because the test results show merely a “high average” aptitude (as Jonri’s daughter experienced), or a kid who interprets weak results as confirmation of an “I can’t” mentality-- for example, the kid who shies away from attending a particular college or embarking on a particular course of study because of the belief, “I can’t do math” or “I will never be any good at writing.”