So there are always gonna be rich kids who get the thousand dollar courses, and those that don't. Can do fine without them, but it's a mistake to think that standardized exams are any measure of what's been learned. You can thank the ETS for that one.

This is always the argument. But you know what statistic doesn't fit that narrative?

I was an Asian American child born to poor immigrant parents who didn't speak English. I scored in the 99th percentile. Look at the statistics of how Asian Americans do on the SATs, then look at the poverty rates for Asians in America.

Pick up an SAT book at the library and study,study,study,study,study and you'll do well. Money helps, I'm not saying it doesn't. But people saying $ = good scores, no $ = bad scores, I think it's just a crock of shit.

They aren't testing anything other than your ability to actually take the exam.

I actually hear this argument a lot and I find it absolutely ridiculous. It's like saying "a race only tests your ability to run fast on a field"... okay, but I'm going to say Usain Bolt is not only fast in the 100m and 200m, I'm sure if I raced him up a hill, he'd crush me.

And I'd take Usain Bolt to race for me up a mountain than the guy who came in last in that race. Nobody is saying the test is an absolute, but it's a pretty damn good indicator.