"Poor test taker", without fail, is a bs excuse for people who are lesser academically talented but cannot bear to admit it. With a couple of exceptions that I

"Poor test taker", without fail, is a bs excuse for people who are lesser academically talented but cannot bear to admit it. With a couple of exceptions that I list at the end. Doing well on these tests is absolutely as important as all of the other ways that these candidates are amazing. It is as irrational to highlight amazing performance in other areas while discounting sub-par performance in standardized testing. Just as much as it would be the inverse. These tests lend insight into, and serve to balance, the "amazing" or "underperforming" metrics in these other areas that may be in fact be more a measure of the relative quality or relative competition within these other areas. In my opinion, the only two factors that are likely to truly affect test scores beyond innate / developed talent are: time management and the timeline of natural cognitive development. If time management is an issue, then it will be an issue in college as well. If it is an issue because of uncontrollable factors, then the student should seek help to have other arrangements made that will enable them to eventually do well on the test. Some people truly don't cognitively bloom until their early to mid twenties. One indication of this might be signs of talent with underperforming grades. Other strategies are more appropriate than having them flounder at an elite University at eighteen years old.