I didn't say it was fair, I was pointing out the NYT being racially biased (as per usual). Imagine at a school that Jenny gets 10 cookies from the teacher, Timmy gets 3, and Johnny gets two. Billy sees all this, but he has a crush on Jenny, so when he tells everyone on the playground about it he doesn't say "Jenny got way more cookies than Johnny, that's so unfair!" Instead he says "Timmy got more cookies than Johnny, that's so unfair!". That's the ridiculousness that I'm pointing out here.

>What if raw SAT score doesn't perfectly reflect lifelong achievement?

It was never intended to?

>How does one account for that?

It's impossible to account for everything. As much as the thinkers of the Enlightenment and their successors have attempted to quantify and measure everything, it's simply not possible in reality. If someone could devise a better means of measurement than current standardized tests like the SAT and ACT, I would happily welcome them.

But one thing is pretty clear and certain: the SAT is a far better measure of mathematical aptitude that high school grades, and until better measures can be found and implemented I fully support continuing to use it for college admissions and college math placement.

> I was pointing out the NYT being racially biased

But we apparently agree that "somehow found a way to describe this as an unfair advantage for White students" is actually accurate on their part?

(The article also openly explains why, if you go past the headline a bit.)

> It was never intended to?

Then we shouldn't use it as such.