> The whole contention is that these measures are not objective, and that they're biased in favor of certain groups.
And it's a silly contention. The SATs were invented by American WASPs. Yet the group that does extraordinarily well, Asians, are the most recent immigrants to the country, from places that have the least similarities (in terms of language, culture, political knowledge, etc.) to American WASP culture.
It's only silly to the extent that you collapse the argument down to the design of the test itself, and not all the circumstances that go into the administration of the test across the country.
Your argument makes no sense because as the comment you are replying says, when you drop the shenanigans, the universities get full of Asians. If what you say is true, they'd become full of rich people of any race, common denominator being the richest you are the likelier you are to be there. But instead what happens is hard working Asians are admitted.
Universities should optimize for the best students.
If your a priori belief is that every group (however defined) has the same merit then every measure of merit is biased except 1. a coin flip 2. some form of group quotas.
Standardized tests are the least-bad way to measure merit. We should try to make them better, not get rid of them.
It seems like there is an inherent contradiction in logic at play.
If you believe that racial disparities result in real harm to certain groups, you would expect the impacts of those harms to show up on objective metrics of capability.
The only way to have a measure blinded to the impacts of inequality is to ignore everything about the individual being measured. Perhaps everyone has equal potential and capability at birth, but everything after that is tainted by their unequal environment.
