Is the SAT important? Wall Street Says Yes.
Below is a snippet of a BB job posting requirement for an Associate role.
REQUIRED BACKGROUND: Resumes without SAT scores will NOT be considered.
- MBA and 1+ years of sell-side, buy-side or investment banking experience as an Associate. (9-10 years since you took the SAT)
Or - Undergraduate degree and 2+ years of sell-side/ buy-side experience or 3+ years of investment banking experience. (7-8 years since you took the SAT)
To all the young monkeys out there, be careful. That test you are taking at 16-18 will impact your career for years to come. Is the SAT such a great measure that it is used to judge people over 7 years after taking it?
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.
It is by far the worst metric to judge an EXPERIENCED AND COLLEGE EDUCATED candidate by. I changed from being a total jackass in high school to actually being the best in college and I hate the idea that a test I took 4-5 years ago will be the reason I didn't get the job or an interview.
That being said, I think if you network and show you're a good fit/smart you can easily overcome it.
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.
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.
Unsurprising in an industry so dedicated to jerking off to pedigree. Hilariously irrelevant metric though.
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.