I think cognitive ability is a real thing with a genuine genetic component; twin studies make that pretty hard to deny. But the SAT measures a narrow slice of ability under conditions that favor prep access, and speaking from experience, scoring well on standardized tests without having to work for it hurt me long term. I coasted on test-taking ability and didn't develop real discipline until adulthood.
Without standardized tests, my transcript probably doesn't get me into a top school, I likely don't end up in tech, and honestly maybe I would've been forced to develop a work ethic earlier, which might have been better for me.
> Why do you think a high SAT score doesn't need "hard work and character"?
Well, it absolutely doesn't need both, because I got one without, at least, the first of those (beyond the extent that "getting up early on a Saturday" and "sitting calmly while bored out of my mind after finishing each portion of the test waiting for time to expire" is "hard work".) I like to think I had the second, but it didn't seem particularly relevant to the test in any way.
The SAT, like general intelligence, is half hard work and half inherited ability, from what I've read. Characteristics that you have no control over, like height, intelligence, race, or sex, should not determine your wealth. It should really be about hard work and character; that's fair. At least in the U.S., there are too many industries like law, venture capital, or VC-invested startup founders, where the pedigree of your school is what matters to your success.
