>What does fair mean?

For example with 0 or as little human factor as possible, without biases.

>Standardized tests have very little impact on ones likeliness to have a successful business or political career.

I'm not saying standardized tests are good proxy for being businessman or politician.

They're fair and transparent way that allows people to bootstrap themselves.

Even if you're poor ass, then you have access to Internet and can learn all those things good enough to get to the top schools.

Ok but if you're just looking for fair and transparent why not take the 2000 fastest 40 yard dash times in world? Certainly a fair and transparent way for poor people to bootstrap themselves into top schools.

Because this is educational institution

So I'm using fair and transparent metrics proxying for learning capabilities, knowledge (in topics related to degrees) , etc, etc?

Ah so you see my point. Using fair and transparent metrics that don't measure the right thing isn't useful. Harvard isn't looking for learning capabilities, knowledge (in topics related to degrees). They're looking for people that will be successful and accrue money/power.

Hmm, but I've already said that

>I'm not saying Harvard needs to change.

>I've been arguing that standardized tests are best available method (at scale) because they're at least fair and transparent.

The discussion started in this context - I replied to this.

>The problem is that standardized tests are more a measurement of access to resources and parental support than raw knowledge or future success. It does feel nice to say that everyone is equal, but not everyone has an equal chance.

I'm speaking more broadly - about the whole edu. sys.