While I agree, let's acknowledge the fair critique from the end that is not, "Keeping high-achieving Asian kids out": the part where the tests themselves cost money parents (and school systems) don't have; the part where the study guide in and of itself is not enough to prepare for these exams, leaving us the true, astronomical cost of preparation; the part where this is all begging the question of what admissions tests are for anyway (generally, the same things poll taxes and quizzes were for).
I agree that the answer is the base SAT, but with an addition of a lottery past a point threshold. Luck (of birth) got us into this mess, and luck could get us out.
> Luck (of birth) got us into this mess, and luck could get us out.
I'm all in favor of adding some kind of RNG to this process. The overpreparation of the wealthy in all kinds of aspects of admissions gives them a big advantage over those who don't. RNG evens it out.
I disagree. A raffle system, while inevitable in some cases (H-1B lottery comes to mind), is totally inappropriate when applied to a standardized test. Quite on the contrary, a standardized test aims to measure capability (however abstract it is), not luck.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to go with a lottery system after some point. Most people with a ACT over ~30 are going to be completely capable of performing the coursework for an undergraduate degree at MIT. And anyone with a perfect score is going to be fine anyway. There are plenty of world-class institutions in the USA that would be more than happy to accept these peopl.
>I think it's perfectly reasonable to go with a lottery system after some point.
Only the wealthy can afford to apply to every single "prestige" college and university available. A lottery where some people get twenty tickets and others get one or two seems just as silly.
I agree that the answer is the base SAT, but with an addition of a lottery past a point threshold. Luck (of birth) got us into this mess, and luck could get us out.