Yeah, a standardized test that can be prepared for in short order via expensive tutors is absolutely a great way to rank applicants, you’re right on the money, which is great because money money money.
What’s expensive is the kind of extracurriculars that Ivy League schools look at when test scores are deemphasized. The kids in Chinatown don’t live next door to anyone who can get them an internship at an impressive non-profit or NGO, or near college professors who can help them get published. The parents working at a Chinese restaurant can’t invest the time it takes to get a kid to be world class in some instrument or sport.
Plus those are explicitly peacocking, in the sense of being a burden on the rest of your life while having very little chance of being useful to you, other than as a flex to get into an elite college. Very very few people make a living of any kind in sports or in music.
Having been that Chinese restaurant kid myself I can promise you it would have been an extraordinarily expensive way to get an education, in comparison to just studying the same old academic books.
[0]https://tenor.com/view/family-guy-racist-racism-funny-gif-99...
At least poor people actually have some chance when it comes to standardized testing.
Every time SAT is mentioned it sounds like it's completely separated from US schooling.
The norm in school is a grade based on number correct. SAT is a composite score with different weights and treatment of answers. When I took it, an incorrect answer deducted points while a blank answer was neutral.
When I was in school, the good students got 1280-1450, and the prep classes would yield 40-100 points in most cases. It’s an optimization exercise. If Johnny can’t read, Kaplan isn’t gonna save him.