Thanks for expanding your points, and apologies that I was glib in the synopsis. Your point is taken on free throws vs test prep. But I think the underlying i

Thanks for expanding your points, and apologies that I was glib in the synopsis. Your point is taken on free throws vs test prep. But I think the underlying issue is actually that you are focused on what kinds of prep we should respect, and I'm focused on what kind of admissions we should expect. I do think kids show an admirable and relevant grit by any kind of practice. But we do them a disservice if we overindex on a single method, and should adjust - just as you'd require a coach to adjust if they based team membership. That amounts to an argument against overweighting the test, and not one in favor of the lottery. But I think the other piece is that if the test does more harm (in making things harder for otherwise qualified kids without access to prep) than good (in detecting the grit that will lead to success), it's better to retire it then keep it. Either way we shouldn't stop with the lottery. Finally, this point is really interesting: > the K-12 education of the US is so bad that it does not hold back brilliant kids, but hold back millions of ordinary kids by not pushing them hard enough I agree that way more kids should have an opportunity to have effort and capabilities recognized with more opportunities all along the education track. I'd be really interested in finding ways to do this that are less dependant on the parents.