I pretty much agree with all you said but I think you’re post echos what I’m trying to say. Schools use SATs to measure potential success at the school and whether a student will be able to stay enrolled at a school. The very fact that you saw this disconnect (as there is with field tests and competitions) indicates that the SAT isn’t nearly as important (for the purposes of the school) as it was once believed to be. The same can be said for field tests. I don’t give 2 craps whether a kid can’t break 3.9 for 30m, do off-the-charts multi-throws, and is weaker than a twig if he can run 10.2….because in my mind, the 10.2 is really the only thing that ultimately matters. All those other numbers are subservient to that one (or whatever the comp eval is). Note that I say all that being one of the biggest ‘test-junkies’ around.
I guess my point really is the SAT > GPA and when factored together they mean nothing without the motivation, feedback, and practice that allowed them occur and they don’t correlate well with each other either, yes better grades tend to score higher, but GPA is not a limiting factor in one abilities to score well nor do they express current abilities well. My biggest problem in school and quite possibly is my biggest character flaw next to passion is competitiveness, but both are strengths so I don’t limit them. I never looked at school as a place to get good grades, and its not, the purpose of a school is an environment to learn in (such as a practice is).
However, for myself school limited my learning environment or ability to practice what I deemed necessary to learn. To me the only thing competitive in school was being as smart or smarter than the teacher or aspiring to that goal. This troubled my mathematics teachers to no end as I can just see things and know the answer, not like a savant such as Rainmain nor like Goodwill Hunting, but I harldy ever needed scratch paper and never showed work and I fully expected to receive no credit if I answered wrong. This served me well on the Standardized tests in math to include the SAT, because you don’t get partial credit on those tests and it hurt most other students.
Relating this back to track and field and even how I would hire potential employees is the one who can compete better is who I would choose to pick up. This doesn’t mean I would automatically take a 10.2 over 10.5 in track. The 10.2 is world’s apart, but when did 10.2 get to 10.5? If it was 4 years ago and he was at 10.2 last year and the 10.5 was at 10.8 last year then the 10.5 deserves serious consideration especially if there is a huge maturation difference. I could maybe get the 10.2 to 10.0, but I would think I had the same chance to get the 10.5 to 10.0 and most likely at a faster rate. What is needed is background information regarding the development of the student or the athlete or the potential employee. How did they get to were they are now? However, that’s not what a coach/teacher/employer is doing with an athlete/student/employee when they under their charge. Which leads us to the purpose of testing, its a way to gauge an aspect of training and what has been learned. Competition is the public result of performing the work at hand, but proof lies in the testing and practice and if someone’s tests show deficiencies which likely hinder performance capabilities despite the great competition results wouldn’t one reassess the training structure (practice) in a way which minimizes the deficiency while not hurting the competition result?
On a side note, I truly believe most public school classrooms and schools need more competition in the school environment. They also need to be less restrictive and allow greater creativity as well while interlocking interdisciplinary subjects like math/science/PE and english/social sciences and both of those groups to business and fine arts. I also believe teacher certification and C&I courses are the biggest hogwash next to fitness/personal trainer certifications as well as most licensed professions to include doctors.