I see the appeal of SAT as a standard metric, but rather than SAT why not allow kids to submit AP (or other standardized subject test scores) instead? Studying for the SAT feels like we are wasting hours of kids lives on an ill-defined concept of general aptitude. Whereas for subject tests (like AP or other standardized subject tests) there is a concrete subject that students are demonstrating that they can choose and master (chemistry, English, Spanish, Calculus, etc.)

I think this approach has the benefit of standardization and the benefit of not wasting kids time forcing them to study for a test which people claim won't change their scores much and where the notion of what aptitude even is isn't really clear (the SAT has changed substantially over the years).

I also really doubt the claim that studying for the SAT won't impact a kid's scores much. I can't think of a single other test where this is the case. It sounds like something people tell poor kids so they don't bother studying for it, while rich kids spend hours in test prep. Then we can say "well it wouldn't have mattered if they got the same resources because aptitude is innate". In contrast, no one can claim that if you just waltz into your chemistry test without studying it won't have an impact.

My preference would be to get rid of "aptitude" tests like the SAT, and use standardized subject tests instead.