>First, the SAT, it turns out, does not measure scholarly aptitude or native intelligence independent of social and educational background. To the contrary, SAT scores are highly correlated with wealth.

Why start the article off with an obvious falsehood? The fact that SAT scores are highly correlated with wealth does not mean that none of the variation in scores is explained by aptitude.

When people make the argument in this article they never seem to propose a fairer alternative. I'm suspicious that the criticism of SATs is actually a movement towards returning to patronage and nepotism.