Across the American high schools, classes are being graded differently across every school and even every class. An average person who goes to an easy school can get a 4.00 while an above-average kid in a competitive school may only get 3.5 because of the high competition. SAT/ACT is a good way to level out any grade inflation/deflation in the high school grading system. If a person is truly smart, he/she should be able to get a decent SAT score regardless of his low GPA. And I believe that schools should accept a student from a competitive school with a low GPA than a student from an easy school with 4.0 (given that the student from the competitive school has a higher SAT score than the one from the easy school).
M m m m m m m f f f frfr n f rf fr f r r r rr r r e f efr fr r r r r r r r r rr r r r r r rr r r r r r r r r r
The ACT does not provide enough testing time for any child to be able to perform well. The pressure of the ACT prevents students who do not test well from performing their absolute best. Some students cannot go to the college they want because they don't have a high enough ACT core but might have worked very hard to keep a 4.0 GPA in High School.
The only things that standardized tests like the SAT and the ACT measure are either the ability for a person to retain information or the ability for one to cram. When students cram, within a week or two, students forget the things they "memorized" because its the brains way of recovering after the stressful cramming session. Judging by the rate at which students cram, its reasonable to say that most students cram for the SAT and ACT exams, and inherently forget what they "learned" afterward. These exams do not test students abilities to think critically, which is the true measure of intelligence, the ability to gather information turn that into concepts, make decisions/ problem solve from those concepts, and critique the validity of those claims. The standardized tests also don't measure hard work.