> The easiest way to understand the shortcomings of these tests (at least their older versions) is to realize that students who use paid SAT/ACT-prep materials

> The easiest way to understand the shortcomings of these tests (at least their older versions) is to realize that students who use paid SAT/ACT-prep materials and services get higher scores than students who don't. Admission criteria do not exist in a vacuum. Since throwing up our hands and saying "we're just not going to admit anyone since this is an imperfect criteria" is obviously not the answer, It only makes sense to compare to the alternatives. I can't think of a cheaper (and more accessible) measuring method than standardized tests. Compared to the cost of participating in leadership roles, sports, learning an instrument, etc, a $20 SAT prep book is an incredibly accessible option. Or put another way, out of all admission criteria, is standardized testing really the least useful / fair? If not, why should it get cut first?