> You are looking at this absolutely, not relatively. I do appreciate this point, but I still don't think it's enough to warrant keeping exams in-place. I thin

> You are looking at this absolutely, not relatively. I do appreciate this point, but I still don't think it's enough to warrant keeping exams in-place. I think we should remove them while also striving to improve the rest of the college admissions process. Having a metric that claims to level the playing field but actually does not is, in my opinion, more harmful than other metrics that are less straightforward. It gives false hope and also allows for a more dastardly scheme of classism, since it is centralized instead of managed separately by each university. > They are quite predictive of college success (GPA) which is why they are used. I think they are indicative of socioeconomic standing, which in turn is predictive of GPA. Students who can afford tutoring, or who have parents who have free time to help while growing up, or who do not need to take on extra jobs, or who don't generally worry about other such stressors that are typically due to low socioeconomic status are consistently shown to achieve greater academic success at all grades, even as early as first grade. Socioeconomic status is the #1 predictor of academic success, and this is reflected by college entrance exams. Keep in mind that it is in the best interests of these organizations to intentionally avoid addressing this point. Also, it's worth remembering that college entrance exams trace their origins back to purported tests of general intelligence that were in fact designed with intentional cultural bias to prevent non-white students from finding admission at universities. (This was later addressed and somewhat rectified, in some ways, but my points is that the organizations responsible have a history of not really caring about crafting a test in the best interests of the student.)