<p>I don’t want to provide information that would help identify me, and the companies might not like to be identified, because using SAT scores can trigger “disparate impact” suits. Here is an article that reflects my experiences:</p>
<p>^^^
It’s your prerogative to keep that information to yourself of course, but with zero specifics I choose to ignore it. How in the world can listing a few companies where you applied for work provide your identity. People do that on here all the time. THey list the schools their kids are applying to, and even where they got in. If it’s possible to identify you from where you applied those firms must have been ridiculously tiny. And if they are secretly violating some sort of hiring regulation, that’s pretty bad.</p>
<p>And yes I’ve read that article before. It refers to a very limited type of job at a few specific companies, like management consulting firms as I mentioned before. And frankly, I don’t believe it is common for 99% of the employment out there, and I certainly hope it isn’t. For a person with a proven track record it is moronic to ask for the results of an exam they took at 16.</p>
<p>And yes, I know McKinsey asks for them. That’s the one example everyone gives. From my original question, if that’s of any interest-
</p>
<p>BTW - I don’t know why I should have to add this because it has nothing to do with my opinion which is based on my professional experience in the workforce, but I was a NMSF, my SATs were int he top percentile, and don’t believe I have ever scored below the top few percent in any standardized test. So I would love it to be true, in the off chance I lose my current job.I only add this because people always assume if you don’t bow down to standardized testing then you must have performed badly on your SATs.</p>
<p>So, it appears there are firms that ask for SAT scores as part of their hiring practices. Who cares? Or, more to the point, for whom (and for what percentage of the workforce) is this relevant? </p>
<p>What percentage of said workforce is employed by the hedge funds, investment banking or elite management consulting firms who reportedly care about SAT scores? I would wager that for the vast majority of the workforce, the last time SAT scores were relevant was when they applied to college.</p>
<p>I cited McKinsey above, and if you Google “SAT scores foo”, where foo is a strategy consulting firm, you will find evidence that several consulting firms do look at SAT and/or GMAT scores. The SAT is a good intelligence test, and these firms are looking for smart people, so it makes sense for them to look at scores.</p>
<p>We get it, Beliavsky. No one is suggesting that the people who work in these firms are not intelligent or that McKinsey and its ilk are not looking to hire the brightest of the bright. Again, so what? If working for McKinsey or a firm like it is your ambition, keep your standardized test scores on a card that you carry in your wallet. If your ambitions are broader (or simply different), it may not matter. I would posit that someone’s SAT score will not be relevant in the vast majority of hiring scenarios.</p>
<p>@Belivarsky
Do you even bother to read my posts? I know these consulting firms ask for test scores. But they are far from the norm in hiring, they are bizarre outliers IMO. </p>
<p>I found this to be really funny -</p>
<p>They even have spawned a cottage industry around how to get hired at these companies. And apparently according to this fellow you can pick and choose your score submittals.</p>
<p>BTW - As I’ve posted before on CC, McKinsey posts sample case exercises on line. THese are far more interesting than this discussion, and about as relevant to most of the population -</p>
<p>Well, Having just high SAT’s though doesn’t seem to cut it with places like Bain. My kid had a friend who had graduated a year earlier that was at Bain. The friend passed his resume on but the recruiter wouldn’t interview him because he didn’t have a 3.7 GPA . It was something like 3.67 ,so arbitrary. No problem, there ae certainly other companies out there besides the ones like McKinsey and Bain.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t want to say that any of these degrees is unnecessary, but some of them probably will have a hard time standing alone when it comes to getting you a job. An English degree is a great preparatory degree for law school, medical school and other graduate programs.</p>
<p>Theater majors, on the other hand, are pretty limited in what their options are. A lot of those degrees are for people who may be looking to make their own way in the world, possibly being self-employed. Graphic designers are certainly in that category; it’s your work that gets you hired as a designer, not the degree. If you’re in one of these categories, you should probably plan on getting a secondary skill-set that is valued in your projected career path and start developing a portfolio of work that you can show employers and clients alike.</p>
<p>Wow, now I am totally confused about SATs and other standardized tests. Shouldn’t McKinsey be asking if you took any test prep before you took the test? If you didn’t, you might be able to increase your investment return by taking a prep class and raising your score. But wait, if its a proxy IQ test, you can’t raise your IQ by studying for a test, can you? Or can you? And can you take the SAT again after you graduate from college and submit that one instead? Or do we assume the SAT score (i.e., IQ) can never go up, no matter when you take the test? But wait, my SATs were nothing special, but 8 years later, after I graduated from law school, I took the GMAT and scored in the 99th percentile (too bad I wasn’t interested in biz) - but what? How did that happen? Did my IQ go up in 8 years? Or is the GMAT easier than the SAT? Or what? (I obviously don’t have a high enough IQ to figure all this out ).</p>
<p>The three best predictors of job success, in order, are work sample tests, general mental ability (GMA) and structured employment interviews.</p>
<p>I dont think we disagree over anything here. All three predictors are g loaded to some degree or other. Combining them should improve validity and utility because two predictors should capture not just more of that g, but also more of the specific skills involved.</p>
<p>As far as intelligence being the best predictor of life chances is concerned, the graph on page 28 should be self-explanatory:</p>
<p>Heck, I used to carry my expired Mensa membership card in my wallet just so I could look at it after I caught myself doing something really stupid. ;)</p>
<p>ROFL, I work with McKinsey all the livelong day, my BFF is a McKinsey person, and I’m laughing at the idea that they’re really asking for SAT scores. Honey, once you’ve proven yourself elsewhere, no one cares. And anyway, McKinsey has plenty of smart people - but they are no smarter than a lot of other people in the world.</p>
<p>^^No, no. I think you misunderstand what I am saying. WE, not you, ALL need to sober up to the enormity of the problem: how to square equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.</p>
<p>My apologies for any miscommunication on my part.</p>
<p>Apology accepted and ditto on any miscommunication on my part. Maybe I’m not as good a reader as I think I am!</p>
<p>But what is your concern, then? Intelligence is important but it has to be combined with other things to add up to success in a particular field. Different levels of intelligence are required to succeed at different types of jobs. Some elite recruiters care about SAT scores. Most employers are figuring out people’s smarts in other ways.</p>
<p>I’m not an elite anything, but my employer is a major player locally and nationally in its industry. I’ve for sure hired people because they seemed sharp. But when you’re hiring writers and editors as I do, finding people who can produce good copy is most important. I can tell you that the smartest people I’ve hired (based on self-report of scores and such in the lunch room!) have not always been the best writers.</p>
<p>Have the read the book “The Bell Curve”, and do you know why it condemned by the left (and some on the right)? Canuckguy, citing Linda Gottfredson and Amy Wax, is making Bell Curve arguments, which I think are valid.</p>
<p>I’ve not read the book. My very brief exposure to the book and the controversy suggests the following:</p>
<ol>
<li>It made some good points.</li>
<li>It has been criticized by a number of reputable academics (whose politics I do not know but whose academic bona fides are strong) as promulgating at least some points that are scientifically questionable.</li>
<li>All of this has little to do with whether it is a good idea to be an English major (about which I would say, “Do it with your eyes open if it’s what you want to do”) and a better idea to go into nursing or some other major with ostensibly better prospects (about which I would also say, “Do it with your eyes open if it’s what you want to do”).</li>
</ol>
).</p>