> Standardized tests simply do not have a history of predicting success at anything on a micro level. This is empirically false. Read about the Longitudinal St

> Standardized tests simply do not have a history of predicting success at anything on a micro level. This is empirically false. Read about the Longitudinal Study of Youth. Children took tests, grew up, lived their lives. You cannot argue the data out of existence. > The law doesn't say that you can't use IQ tests for anything of economic importance. It says that you can't use them to discriminate. There are many practices which are not illegal per se, but put you at dire financial risk liability-wise. Read about the actual consequences of the precedent set by the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. decision. Talk to a lawyer about whether it can ever be safe to include a traditional IQ test in your company's hiring process. The problems involved in demonstrating "non-discriminatory intent" and "performance applicability" are insurmountable. Unless you have extraordinarily deep pockets, the sheer expense (not to mention PR debacle) of fighting such a lawsuit will sink you before you are at any risk of overturning the precedent. > It's also very possible that the test scores aren't used in society because are relatively meaningless. Once again, the falsehood of this statement can be uncovered by anyone who cares to look. We aren't talking about an organized conspiracy here - only a generation's worth of toxic political correctness.