I'll concede the essay is a bit mealy-mouthed, but that's kind of my point: that's what the topic requires; it's no place for ham-fisted convictions. But I think the SAT entrenches university-based sorting rather than subverts it--it's been a mainstay of that sorting mechanism throughout it's evolution into its modern pernicious form.
I think “SATs entrench the university based sorting” is a shakier assumption than any of those you question in the article.
Harvard will be just as prestigious and hard to access with or without the SAT - it’s just different kids will have access to that prestige.
And I think you deeply underrate the value of sorting, and of having objective criteria for measuring learning, in order incentivize learning rather than gaming (grade inflation, sports nonsense, class markers, etc.)
What is a better way to reveal talent for academic work?
I'll concede the essay is a bit mealy-mouthed, but that's kind of my point: that's what the topic requires; it's no place for ham-fisted convictions. But I think the SAT entrenches university-based sorting rather than subverts it--it's been a mainstay of that sorting mechanism throughout it's evolution into its modern pernicious form.
I think “SATs entrench the university based sorting” is a shakier assumption than any of those you question in the article.
Harvard will be just as prestigious and hard to access with or without the SAT - it’s just different kids will have access to that prestige.
And I think you deeply underrate the value of sorting, and of having objective criteria for measuring learning, in order incentivize learning rather than gaming (grade inflation, sports nonsense, class markers, etc.)