Is the SAT important? Wall Street Says Yes.

I wonder if they consider gmat scores instead of sat scores especially if you are an MBA.

Absolutely disagree with the lengths in which banks will go to toss out resumes based on a bad SAT score. I tested far out of the average with respect to SAT scores at my school think 1800 (yes, out of 2400) at a top 20 school and yet I am performer here consistently at the top of my class (3.9 GPA). I had multiple SA offers and in each of those cases they were aware of my SAT scores. I HATE the idea that banks will continue to ask for these scores because they're as irrelevant as my first vocab quiz in 5th grade. The SAT's are a terrible indicator of intelligence and most schools that believe in retaining the top talent in the nation have transitioned to test-optional. If you still base your talent on how well you fill in a scantron there is some serious soul searching needed. And if you did well on the SAT I am sure you're plenty smart and I don't mean to diminish your accomplishment in any way, I just want to be clear that they are not a good indicator for many students, rather than all.

I think it's important to understand why banks look at the SAT. When you have 1,000+ resumes to comb through, you need to find easy data points to use to eliminate people by. The SAT is such an easy data point. Unless we get to a point where IB is no longer an attractive career option, resulting in far fewer applications made, banks will keep looking at SAT scores as data points.

Im confused as to which SAT they mean. They have the SAT reasoning test which has an or some English portions (depending if you took the 1600 or 2400 version) along with a simple math section and then the SAT Subject Tests which get specific into tricky math. I'd assume they would get much more of an insight with the Subject Test of Math Level 2, but they might also want the SAT 1? Should we just put both?

To play devil's advocate, it is standardized. You can't necessarily evaluate a candidate by the quality of his/her school because they could have been a legacy admit that otherwise didn't deserve to go there, then combine that with grade inflation that varies wildly from school to school and major to major.

.

For better or worse, the SAT is the most important test a person will ever take, at least at this point in time. It's not perfect by any means but to address some of the points people brought up:

-The SAT II have a variety of subjects covered, and they aren't required unlike the SAT I/ACT for college admissions. It's difficult to filter kids out by the SAT Math Level 2 Subject Test because some haven't taken it.

-Colleges have an incredible amount of grade variation, not only amongst schools, but also colleges within the university, and even courses taken. People always talk about how a Princeton 3.4 = a Yale 3.7, but what about an Econ vs CS or Math major? There are also professors that dish out A's, and others that you can struggle to get a B in for the same subject. Your GPA will literally be at the mercy of your registration time.

Standardized tests exist because of these variations that make comparisons between people difficult. It is not a flawless way to compare candidates but it is a far superior method than going on GPA (obviously the best method is to compare using work experience and measurable skills).

I think a better system than using archaic SAT scores is to have an exit examination after undergraduate studies. While SAT performance is certainly affected by the household you grew up in, the school system you attended, etc., a new standardized test after students have completed a BA/BS will basically measure kids who have gone through the same 4-year experience for the most part. Most of the people I know vehemently against standardized tests are not strong test takers. That is not a good reason to completely abolish a reasonable system.

I wonder what the repercussions (if any) would be if you lied about your SAT score. Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley are the only banks I know of that require it.

Jefferies? I saw something similar on a job posting on LinkedIn.

So funny. I remember thinking I was so damn smart because of my SAT score in high school. What a worthless metric then, as it is now.

Baseline? Fine, say you want a 1300/1600 minimum. But the difference between a 1300 and a 1400 can literally be three questions depending on the curve that year.

No it's not. You think firms ask VP, MDs etc about their SATs or gmat scores before handing out enormous sign on and relocation packages as you see higher ups jump ship each year? In the end it only matters that you can perform and handle ambiguity to win business.

Not one question on the SAT will come across your desk as your turning comments in a long shot pitchbook.

Also where were all the perfect SAT score employees sounding the alarm in 07-08? Ask that question in the interview

I'm a senior in high school, so I've taken the SAT more recently than anyone here. I got a 1440/1600 on the Redesigned SAT, which converts to around a 2080, depending on the college. Colleges have been converting the SAT differently since this is the first applicant pool with the New SAT. How would this score be viewed on the Street? Advantage, disadvantage, or neutral?

Thanks

As Sil said, I understand the reasoning behind this. Although I still think it is complete garbage. There is a lot of development that goes on between your junior/senior year of high school and the person a bank is hiring for a SA stint or FT role. To base it off something from so long ago just seems silly to me.

I wish all they cared about were standardized tests. 34 ACT (superscore) but a college GPA of 2.6ish?

I took my SAT back in 2002, maybe 2001 (I can't remember). I got a 1280/1600. Whatever, still got a job on the street anyway. Imagine my shock when just a few months ago I was asked what my score was by a recruiter! I replied, "I took that test more than 10 years ago and have been working at a BB since, is this really important?" Apparently it was. I had to keep reminding her that it was out of 1600 because she kept forgetting! Surprised to hear that the ACT is now more popular, we were always told in school that it was only used by west coast schools and therefore wasn't worth it to do if you were applying to an east coast school.

If you're letting your SAT score determine your fate in an application process then you're already done with.

If that is how they are in recruiting for a non-entry level position, then I don't want to work for them anyway. I can only imagine how shitty the culture is.

I am just waiting for the time when the next recruiting cycle requires genetic testing and prenatal report cards.

What is the logic in using tests that have absolutely zero carryover into the real world to assess somebody's qualification for a real world job? If somebody has multiple years of experience and at minimum an undergrad degree and you need their SAT scores to determine if they're qualified you must be a moron. This is really the dumbest thing I've ever seen and I have seen it posted on job applications I've filled out. "5+ years equity research experience....please provide SAT scores". I didn't even remember the score, I had to dig around and find the break out of it because after being accepted to college that test has/had zero relevance in my life.

The only job that ever asked for my SAT was one I ultimately turned down, and my SAT was higher than they guy asking me.

I don't want to work for someone who is dumber than me.

Besides, people take the SAT when they're essentially 18 year old hormonal idiots. No one should be held accountable for tests taken at that point in life. Especially not years later after they've matured and focused in the work force for a while.

Any company relying on BS indicators such as decade old SATs or voodoo is probably going to be a miserable place to work.

Unsurprising in an industry so dedicated to jerking off to pedigree. Hilariously irrelevant metric though.

I know kids with damn near perfect SAT scores who end up with sub-par grades (FO gigs. The SAT is an extremely poor metric for any kind of real-world on the job performance (let alone college readiness).

Can't someone just lie about their score? Will the banks check to make sure you're telling the truth?

Think you've missed the point. I'd bet this is 100% the doing of a HR drone who was told to post an ad, filter the CVs and give the best to the team to review. HR drone thinks reviewing the applications is hard work so posts the ad with a requirement for a standardised score to make their life easy.

This sort of thing happens all the time when we interact with HR; they have zero idea what we actually do and struggle to properly analyse CVs even at a very high level

Then who is making these rules/requirements ? Is it the HR or the team that you will be working for or both ? And how they justify it ?

I hope anyone reading this tread with a low SAT score doesn't become discouraged. I have a 1430/2400 SAT score and I've interned at two Tier 1 BBs (GS/JPM/MS). One in a FO role and the other in a MO role. Don't let something as silly as a test you took as a teenager impact your pursuit to breaking into your dream job.

My 2cents: Good SAT scores in high school are a product of having your stuff together (maturity, discipline, dedication) to prepare (coupled with household you grew up in) or testing well. I had an ~88 / 100 average in HS and can't even remember my SAT score on the 1600 point system but it was not great. Purely based on those stats, they were not good enough to get into the T20 private that I went to. However, in uni I had my stuff together and graduated summa cum laude with a 3.9 GPA and have been top-bucket every year in my analyst & associate class. At least for me, the SATs are the least accurate predictor of intelligence or job performance.

I agree that bankers are constantly getting truckloads of resumes and need ways to filter down applications but using a test the validity of which is constantly in question for employees 5+ years removed from taking it is just a bad idea.

I'm in my 30s and I get asked from time to time when recruiting for certain positions. It's a fucking joke really and I only have an average score. I was asked just last year for even non-WS type job but in finance.

Looking at standardized test scores is a bit absurd IMO given that studies have shown the lack of correlation between SAT scores and _________________.

Why not offer case studies or a modeling exam online (i.e. Shell makes applicants take a math/reasoning test as a way of screening people out)? I would argue that a financial modeling test would be more indicative of future performance and a better screen for applicants than someones SAT score.

Also if you want to look at SAT scores hell why not recruit out of high school and have analysts skip college all together? You can hire them for dirt cheap but will have to train and deal with their attitude and lack of maturity but hey why the hell not? /sarcasm

As a non-American I am not really aware of the grading system of the SAT, but unfortunately asking for high school grades is also the norm for MBB / PEs here in the Benelux. My story is similar to those above in that I didn't care as much about grades in high school (read: average performer) but actually excelled and graduated top of my class in uni, and I am seriously annoyed by the implications of my behaviour 4-5 years ago. Having said that, I do not regret any of it since I actually thoroughly enjoyed my time in high school.