One needs to be careful about drawing extensive conclusions when looking at correlation with a single variable in a population that was selected across a large number of variables. For example, suppose SAT score is correlated with the quality of career related skills learned during college, and the quality of career related skills learned during college is correlated with job performance. In such a hypothetical scenario. it would be possible for SAT score to have a decent correlation with job performance, and also SAT score not having any significant benefit to hiring beyond testing of career specific knowledge.
Or suppose SAT score is correlated with just about every applicant evaluation criteria including college major, college GPA, interview success, degree of relevant experience, and various other criteria employers hire for. If so, then it’s possible for the score to add little benefit beyond the existing hiring criteria, and yet the score to still show a decent correlation with job performance alone. In such a hypothetical scenario the score might instead have the negative effect of decreasing SES diversity, while not notably improving hiring. I’m not saying SAT score has no benefit, only that looking at correlations with just one criteria in non-random population can result in misleading conclusions. The more interesting measure would be comparing a what happens if a company keeps all of their hiring procedure the same except for adding/removing test scores. In studies of SAT correlation with academic success in college, the testing benefits decrease tremendously when controlling for other applicant evaluation criteria like this.
Regarding management consulting, it depends on the firm. There is not a universal hiring procedure. For example, the study at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027656241000065X looked at the hiring procedures at 120 “elite” management consulting, law, and investment banking firms. She describes a large variation in hiring methods, but the typical hiring procedure was quite different than your description, with fewer than 1/3 of these “elite” employers even using standardized testing in hiring decisions for entry level employees. She describes the hiring process as:
She also asked the “elite” employers to list all the criteria they use in hiring decisions and select the one from that list that is most important. 40% of surveyed “elite” management consulting firms said cultural fit was the most important criteria, rather than anything related to performance on the sample case test. The paper also emphasizes the extracurricular screen is a way of checking cultural fit, in addition to the interviews. For example, one hiring manager wrote,
Another wrote
Other industries usually having completely different hiring procedures. In surveys of general employers (not just “elite” banking/consulting/…), employers typically say they emphasize relevant experience, and college reputation has little impact. Most say they do not use scores. For example, I mentioned that when I was a new engineering grad applying for jobs at west coast tech companies, none of the many tech companies I interviewed with requested SAT, GRE, or other standardized tests; yet all of them had interview style testing of technical knowledge that was specific to my field and often the job position.
Anecdotally I’ve observed that when SAT screen is used, it is typically used at jobs that emphasize training a new skill that his little relation to the focus of college coursework. For example, a CS major applying to Apple for a CS related job that closely ties in to what he learned in college probably isn’t going to be required to submit SAT scores and is instead going to be tested on his CS knowledge during a series of interviews; while a CS major applying to a “elite” management consulting job that does not particularly relate to the CS skills he learned during college is more likely to get a SAT screen. This fits with the studies you referenced where testing was more predictive for training success than for direct performance.