From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg, Your four criticisms of Murray are all a bit off base. On your first point, Murray did cite athletics as the one area in which quantitative information is available. On your second, “working with your hands” point, Murray did not use the self-esteem argument to prove that SATs are not indicative of college success. Rather, after showing that the SATs are not needed as academic predictors because the achievement tests and high school tests did the trick, he went on to show why the test is not merely unnecessary but pernicious. It is only to that point that the 40th percentile issue was relevant: i.e., the test is not only unnecessary but balefully dispiriting to the unsuccessful and baleful inspiriting to the successful. On the third point, even agreeing with your observation, if the SAT is indeed unnecessary in predicting college success, your observation does not provide any reason to retain it (just a softening of one reason to eliminate it). As to your fourth point, the hubris of the rich and successful, who unlike the aristocrats of yore truly believe that their privilege derives from their personal merit (as in, “we live in a meritocracy”) has been an abiding concern of Murray’s at least since The Bell Curve. That book explains in far greater detail than an article in The American has space for what’s wrong when a society’s elite believes that it is not just fortunate but entitled to the goodies it has garnered. In that regard, I also recommend [this ].

Me: I’m still columnizing. But, for the record, I have heard of the Bell Curve before, thanks.