[Fomite]

There are a number of just-so stories you can make about them being either unfair or fair - but the education field doesn't consider this a settled question, and unless you're looking at the data in a systematic fashion with a clearly defined outcome and access to lots of control variables, you can't actually be sure the test yields the "best" students.

And indeed, the definition of "best" in this context is circular.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you can't be certain you're right.

[mrchicity]

Sure but you're fighting a strawman here. Nobody believes standardized tests are perfect or 100% accurate at determining ex post performance. We all know people who score well but lack discipline. People who support quotas don't merely believe tests are flawed, but believe they are flawed in extremely biased ways that need outside correction.

On most of these tests, you have to solve math or logic problems, or read passages and synthesize information. It's hard to imagine someone could do exceptionally well answering those questions quickly & accurately and not perform in a classroom, or be unable to do those tasks yet excel academically.

[Fomite]

My statement doesn't argue against "this test is perfect" but rather a much laxer statement that they're "Race blind and fair" being axiomatically true.

It's entirely possible to have the latter be true without the former.

As for your "It's hard to imagine..." in my career teaching I've met both phenotypes.