<p>Amazon’s point is correct (and obvious), and not inconsistent with what any of the rest of you are saying. It is perfectly clear that the SAT does not test the limits of many students’ abilities. A harder test would discriminate among the 800-scorers (and some of the 790, 780, etc., scorers, too), and stretch out their scores over a wider range of high scores. Instead, all the top scores cluster at 800 – the long right tail of the bell curve is aggregated there.</p>
<p>Somewhere in those 800 scores, there’s a kid who could have gotten a 10,000. But some of the 800 scorers would have maxed out at 800, and some of the 790 scorers might have gotten 950. There’s no way to tell who is who from the SAT score alone, because the test doesn’t test for it, and it’s not reliable except within bands.</p>
<p>And, for the 800th or 2400th time, 2400, or 4800, worth of SAT scores, even if they denote really superior intelligence, is just not very impressive if it is unaccompanied by some evidence of actual superior achievement and engagement in the world. Admissions committees at hyper-selective colleges, and scholarship committees, don’t oooh and aaah over perfect SAT scores because they have tons of additional information which is considerably more nuanced and responsive to their needs. They use the SAT scores as part of a rough cut, and to confirm what other information may suggest. That’s a perfectly good use for them.</p>
<p>Look: I can sympathize with those parents who wish great SAT scores meant more. If they did, my son would have had a different set of choices in April than he had, one that I would have enjoyed more. But that just isn’t the way the world works, and I don’t think it should work that way, either.</p>