That Graph says the same thing I said, both are more accurate together. And at the tails of the bell curve, they tend to be more predictive, which is a good reason the most competitive schools still use standardized test scores. You got a 4.0 in high school, but only got a 31 on your ACT, you’re not going to have as good a chance to get into the most competitive schools. Or, you got a 3.87 because you had one ******* teacher, but you scored a 36 on your ACT, that means more than your 3.87.No, it really isn't. SAT score correlates, but it doesn't correlate particularly well. It's fine if schools want to keep using it, but I don't think it's actually that helpful, and I don't think it's a great loss if it goes away.
As you hinted at earlier, effort is the real key to success, and that is true in much more than just school.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/presto...mpletion-high-school-gpa-beats-sat-score/amp/
I still think you’re diluting the actual value of standardized testing. I do think that it would be fairer though to flatten out the opportunities. It would be better, fairer, if all students had the same opportunity for test prep. Students from wealthier families can afford the most expensive test prep bootcamps. But that same inequality is also baked into GPA. A 4.0 at an affluent school where academic standards are very high, is not the same as a 4.0 at some rotting school in a poor area, where standards are very low.