If they ever extend this to the SAT / ACT itself (and not just the subject tests) I will have lost a lot of respect for MIT. A goal of higher education is to g

If they ever extend this to the SAT / ACT itself (and not just the subject tests) I will have lost a lot of respect for MIT. A goal of higher education is to give the opportunity to people who will likely make the best use of the education, and have the greatest chance of succeeding given their preparation. Spots at top colleges are a limited resource. There has to be a selection function, and an unbiased test that asks questions about math, reading comprehension, etc. is as close as you're going to get. The SAT, regardless of your opinion of whether it exacerbates or merely reflects inequities in the system, is a very strong indicator of whether a person has the preparation to succeed at university. You cannot get around that fact. Whether high-priced prep courses or studying out of a book from the library help you pass the test, the person doing either of those things has gotten education and skills along the way. God forbid you consider the idea that someone actually learned something even though the test was standardized. And the fact that even poor families will pay to put their kids through test prep courses suggests they see value in it. It's not like they're paying to be given instructions on how to cheat the system. People who want to water down the admissions criteria to be a social equalizer ought not mask their motives by saying that the test is flawed. The test is perfectly fine, and it reflects people's preparation and abilities to succeed at university. If you want to change the outcome, change the inputs -- and work on getting more people qualified to pass that test.