> Sure the SAT/ACT does favor students whose parents had enough money to afford private tutors Not really, most evidence points to private tutors as we know th

> Sure the SAT/ACT does favor students whose parents had enough money to afford private tutors Not really, most evidence points to private tutors as we know them having a very small impact on test scores. On a large study low-income students controlled I recall something like +30 points and something like a non-statistically-significant difference for high income students. The income difference was still its usual +100 points. The thing you and pretty much everyone else conflates with private tutors as Americans conceive them is cram schools, which are a different beast entirely. If you just punch private tutoring into Google Scholar you'll see they're really talking about cram schools whenever a large effect is observed. Should the University of California system reward parents who coerce their kids into a childhood-robbing experience they will pay dearly for later? Who's going to investigate, "Do kids who endured cram school emerge healthy?" Does that sound like a good policy, cram school? We don't want our regular education system to resemble a cram school. We regularly rally against teaching to the test. We can't have it both ways. Cramming is not valuable, it simply isn't, it is only valuable in a very narrowly delusional, zero sum worldview but it's not a policy.