<p>My conclusion is that standardized test scores are indicative of a lot in judging the strength of an applicant/student. It is not the whole story and it needs to be considered in context with other parts of the application, but it is an important data point. </p>
<p>I think many people on this board arguing against standardized test scores underrate the ability of adcomms, employers, etc. to put the scores in context. If their admit/hire decisions were based solely on this, then the argument would have far greater merit, but this is just not the case. SAT and standardized tests are a data point and different schools/companies value it differently. For colleges, they will tell in the CDS or public statements how they use the SAT.</p>
<p>I also believe that the use of standardized tests help identify where an individual may have some weakness in an application. The difference between a 600 and an 800 on a Math or Critical Reading (and soon Writing) section is meaningful and suggests that the evaluator look further to understand the connection or lack thereof to other parts of the application (transcript, essays, recommendations). Adcomms and other evaluators understand this and this is what they get paid to consider as part of their complete application analysis. Adcomms understand perhaps better than any of us the limitations of standardized testing and the environments where students come from and how this relates to the scoring. They also understand that, in most cases, there is usually a relationship between student preparedness and aptitude and these scores.</p>