[samatman]

What you're proposing is testocracy.

Which has a storied history, being the primary means of governance of China for millennia.

But to call it meritocracy, we must do two things: elide the correlation between tested excellence and academic performance, which correlation is strong but not perfect, and then conflate academic merit with meritoriousness generally, which I firmly reject.

Call it what it is: testocracy. A quick search shows that the word is not unknown. I'd accept a better one, so long as it doesn't involve pretending that grinding ones life away for a chance at the top is equal to merit.

[beervirus]

College is an academic pursuit. What other type of "merit" besides academic merit could possibly be relevant when we're talking about college admissions? I mean maybe alcohol tolerance, but...

[samatman]

You're affirming the consequent. If college were a merely academic pursuit, and if standardized testing were a perfect proxy for academic achievement, then yes, we could collapse testing into academic merit, and academic merit into merit, and voila! Meritocracy.

But college is not merely an academic pursuit. I would argue it isn't even centrally an academic pursuit. Instead, it is a gatekeeper to the higher echelons of society. The -cracy refers to ruling, let us keep in mind.

You propose rule by those who are best at standardized testing, and wish to pass that off as some sort of merit. Basta.

I reject any sort of one-size-fits-all criterion for admission. If a college wishes to be testocratic, as CalTech is, so be it. If they wish to strongly favor black people, as the historically black colleges do, fine. This sort of localism is more robust and flexible, and I think this leads to better outcomes.

[tester756]

Your "testocracy" is a good proxy for hardwork, determination and "domain" knowledge, so good enough, I guess?