Jessica Wynn

This is where the critics start poking holes.

First, the SAT has a messy history.

It grew out of early 20th century ideas about intelligence that weren't exactly inclusive.

They were tied to eugenics, IQ testing, and the belief that aptitude was fixed and evenly distributed, often along racial, ethnic, and class lines.

And second, even today, wealthier students consistently score higher, and not just because they're smarter.

Exactly.

Money buys prep, time, quiet places to study, tutors, coaching, and someone tracking your progress.

So the test might be standardized, but access to preparation isn't.

There are.

The Khan Academy offers free SAT prep materials like videos, articles, and practice tests, and it's genuinely solid.

They even partnered with the college board to create it.

But free only helps if you have the support to use it.

A kid using Khan Academy needs self-discipline, a quiet space, and probably someone checking in on their progress.

And a kid with a $3,000 tutor has a personalized study plan, someone holding them accountable and adapting the approach to address their specific weaknesses.

Also, families who can afford these prep courses like Barron's or Princeton Review, they just see bigger score gains.

Because it's not just about the content.

It's about that structure and support.

That's the heart of the criticism.

And here's another issue.

Some research suggests the SAT actually underpredicts college performance for Black and Hispanic students while slightly overpredicting it for white students.