I was supposed to take that and then I decided it was stupid, and following my new rule where I only do things I want to do, I didn't bother to sign up. The content wouldn't have been an issue; jumping through their hoops was gonna be.
Like flag, I'm confident that this test I've never taken or even really looked at for more than a few minutes a few days in practice books would have been a breeze if I had actually bothered to take it. That's a healthy 50/50 sarcasm/not mix. Who knows about standardized tests, anyway? I'm a fast tester (the last big exam I took, took me half the time it took all other participants, and that was with me deliberately slowing myself down) and generally a good tester. But, like - does that actually mean anything? Does that say anything about me? Is that even something to be proud of?
It's more like ... a series of imperfect correlations added together. Someone who got an 800 verbal is x much more likely to write poetry. Generally speaking, you'd rather hire the kid who got a 750 than the one who got a 600. Maybe the 800 math scorer is slightly less likely to need a calculator in daily work at the lab than the one who got a 600. Add the small things up, and the overall score is, I'd say, pretty helpful. Not perfect -- and probably not as ironclad as it used to be treated by university admissions officers, but still helpful. Of course, this is all coming from someone who thinks this is the worst Supreme Court decision since 1857, not because of the immediate affirmative action it encouraged, which was probably necessary, but because of the insidious idea that was planted in the labor market: you are not allowed to explicitly discern an employee's intelligence before you hire them.