[adfgadfgaery]

The debate is about the quality and predictive value of the tests. Opponents claimed that the tests had a cultural bias so students from some backgrounds would do better than others, that students who had a good education before university would be better prepared, and that studying for tests or taking tests repeatedly has been shown to improve scores but is only accessible to people who can afford it. These are all claims that the tests are not good at predicting aptitude.

The arguments against these tests are, of course, awful. Objective tests are the best way we know of to remove human bias. Aptitude tests (basically IQ tests) are the best way we know of to measure someone's natural ability (determined in early childhood) with little influence from their experience. Since their arguments make so little sense, it is reasonable to wonder about the psychology of opponents of standardized testing. But their arguments are, at least on the surface, about predictive value.

[hkt]

> it is reasonable to wonder about the psychology of opponents of standardized testing

It is, at its core, a fear that testing largely reproduces the status quo. If one accepts the idea that there is an intellectual elite who constitute the highest strata of society, and that their gifts are innate and heritable rather than trained, it follows that social mobility is pretty much dead. It is a bleak vision.

Personally I think there are different problems that are much bigger and woollier which keep people from non-elite backgrounds down, regardless of test outcomes. The structure of the education sector and employment more widely. Expectations about life and the distribution of rewards etc. We rarely have good quality, nonpartisan discussions about these things which I think pushes people to take views which are instrumental rather than informed.

[adfgadfgaery]

>it follows that social mobility is pretty much dead. It is a bleak vision.

I have always found the idea of social mobility depressing. It assumes that we will always have a hierarchy, with some people who are powerful and prestigious and others who are poor and always feel inadequate. It assumes that we will always have an underclass but at least people can leave it.

[zozbot234]

The kind of social mobility that SAT has some influence on is not really about "power and prestige", which I also think of as generally pathological dynamics. It's literally about how competent and professional you want to be, and how well you can perform your work duties. It's social mobility within the 'working' class, not really away from it.

[hkt]

Yes. The old saying among Labour party socialists in the UK was "rise with your class, not above it". They were in favour of a high floor on living standards and a low ceiling on wealth. It isn't a stretch to think that a more even playing field would be a better substitute for mobility.