This is almost exactly what I was going to write. Until you get to ACT or SAT's, students really don't have much incentive to do well on standardized tests. Generally they have no effect whatsoever so many kids don't take them seriously. The tests mean so much more to the teachers and the school districts than the do to the kids. This makes them a terrible proxy for how the teachers and districts are actually doing.
I probably spent over 100 hours preparing for the SAT/ACT exams as a 16 year-old. Given that I received over $50K (early '90's) in merit-based college scholarship money based mostly on these scores, I effectively "earned" $500/hour studying. I have yet to earn this much as an adult.
A good question. Certainly, without preparation, I would have received an above average score. IIRC, CWRU required a 33 on the ACT for the better of two merit-based scholarships. I got a 34 the 3rd time I took the test. I think the difference between the two scholarship levels was around $18K. Given that I think my studying was worth at least a point, I can argue that my time was rewarded at at least $180/hour.
[To answer what I think is an obvious question, I doubt the overall utility of my hundred hours spent studying. However, it wasn't like CWRU was going to give me the same scholarship for having done something more useful instead.]
Speaking for myself, I know the first time I took the ACT I went in not even sure what the four subjects were. Did well, took a study class at my high school, bought a review book, did practice tests, etc. Took it again two months afterwards, exact same composite score.
I realize the test prep helps some people tremendously, but I think the ACT at least does a decent job of testing what you actually know (or at least how good you are at taking tests) than how well you prepared.
I had a similar experience where I took the SAT three separate times and scored exactly the same on the verbal section each time. The math section improved between tests one and two, but was the same for test three. And they weren't "good" scores at all. 560 on verbal and 590 to 620 on math.
But I also took the SAT 2 subject area tests which I felt were much more accurate assessments of my abilities where I scored 670 in writing and 680 in math without studying at all and only one exposure to the test.
I never really cared about those scores so much, but it definitely makes me question the value of the SAT for much of anything.
