>allow high performing students to objectively differentiate themselves Except the argument by people is it's NOT objective. I think the argument goes somethi

>allow high performing students to objectively differentiate themselves Except the argument by people is it's NOT objective. I think the argument goes something like this: rich kid gets full time tutor privately or through school and is able to do significantly better on the SAT/ACT because they have specifically prepared for it. It doesn't mean they are smarter, or even a better student. It means they have been prepped better for it than their peers that don't have the same luxuries. If 95% of the time a student scores higher after taking an expensive prep course, does that mean scoring higher really means much? Especially with SO many people taking the test, that little bit makes a difference where are you on the curve.. perhaps people are thinking that the kids whose parents can afford the time and money to give them a slightly advantage on the test doesn't translate into that person being a better student.