You are disagreeing with the premise - that the skills being measured are not necessary. I nominally agree with you.
But I'm asking people who agree with the premise whether they also agree with the logical conclusion - if the tested skills are unnecessary for most/all, why not stop teaching them, fire teachers and reduce spending on education commensurately?
I did make a claim about how it makes sense even if the skills aren't directly applicable to any profession.
I understood the claim to be "the skills being measure are not necessary" to mean "you don't need the skills to be successful" which I do agree with. That is a completely different claim than the idea that that the skills are useless, the skills are only useful to some (significant) subset of the population, and I argue that we should teach them even to people that they will be useless for to force feed them an opportunity that they might otherwise have ignored as a possibility.
But I'm asking people who agree with the premise whether they also agree with the logical conclusion - if the tested skills are unnecessary for most/all, why not stop teaching them, fire teachers and reduce spending on education commensurately?