Reading this is really weird for me. Worthwhile and eye-opening, but also baffling: I am literally the chair of the faculty committee at my small college that voted a couple of years ago to go test-optional (provisionally but with an eye toward making it permanent). I won't claim to be an great expert on the issues involved, beyond generally trying to keep up with the broad conversation about research outcomes: we're too small for any of us to specialize enough to get into the weeds of specific studies and methodologies outside of our fields (I'm in physics).

From all I've read in the past, though, standardized test outcomes are very strongly correlated with family wealth. The kids who have great SAT vocabularies are overwhelmingly the kids who grew up with parents with plenty of free time to read to them every day. High scoring kids are overwhelmingly the ones whose families could provide lots of educational support (either through direct help from available parents or through private tutoring). They're so very often the ones who spent weeks of their lives getting dedicated training in the otherwise-useless skill of "how to take a standardized test". And the correlation between SAT score and college success (by whatever metric) is IIRC quite low once you control for family background. So by and large, the faculty members that I know have come to see standardized testing as precisely a tool to give preference to kids from wealthy, privileged backgrounds.

Obviously the author of this article had a very different experience! And clearly there are kids out there who can use standardized tests to demonstrate amazing competence beyond what their grades show. (That's why we went "test optional" rather than "no tests allowed", for what it's worth.) And I'm not at all surprised that admissions essays correlate even more strongly with wealth than do SAT scores. (We don't rely entirely on essays, either.) Maybe we really did get it wrong, and the research we considered really was misleading, and universal testing would raise up more underprivileged students than it threw down. But I promise you, I absolutely 100% promise you, that no person in that room where we made the test-optional decision believed that the outcome of our decision would be fewer students with challenging backgrounds being admitted.

So is the claim here that the college decision makers adopting these policies are also dupes of "the chattering class"? (Aren't we supposedly a part of that class?) Or maybe it's just that I, personally, was the dupe of my faculty colleagues, who were conniving behind my back to get less competent students in their classes? I don't get it.

The only conclusion I can draw, in general, is that it is really hard to disentangle an individual student's intrinsic potential and preparedness from the influence of family wealth and resources. I agree with this author that there really are enormous systemic biases that encourage class segregation, and those biases are viciously wide-ranging and flexible and are embedded across all axes of achievement and opportunity. So I'm not particularly happy about the way that this essay very explicitly assumes bad faith on the part of those of us struggling to find a way to make things better.

[I'm posting this late enough that it'll probably never be seen, but given my connection to the subject I still feel compelled to chime in.]