He might also fail the standardized test entirely.

Perhaps, though imo standardized testing is the lesser of two evils.

There's major inequity with the lack of standardized testing.

I am from country which has these standardized tests for all engineering, medicine, management and other competitive fields. The result is there is sprawling industry of "coaching institutes" which train kids for college admission exams. Those who are getting in through this system now are people whose parents can afford this increasingly expensive coaching.

So all mediocre kids with money have better chance than a brighter kid who couldn't afford coaching. Of course genius could still make it through this system but genius can also make it thru school grading system. There are enough programs to help out them.

Problem here is that barely above average students who wouldn't want to study all subjects per curriculum start to think of themselves as ignored geniuses crushed by the system.

That's always going to be true regardless of whether there's standardized testing or not. Also, it still gives poor children a better chance. Do you think poor kids can afford to "polish" their application with a bunch of extra curricular activities that's typically required for top-tier schools? I think a truly difficult standardized test is still more fair than any other alternative.

The fact that there are a bunch of asian kids from poor socioeconomic backgrounds who make it into stuyvesant https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/05/233354/stuyvesant-a... is one example of how standardized testing can make it so that hard work can make the difference. I'm not saying that rich kids don't have an automatic leg up, but that's always going to be true regardless. Standardized testing (if anything) gives everyone a shot.

We have no standardized tests in Ontario. You just pay for expensive sports, extracurricular competitions, or private schools that provide the two.

Realistically, it's much easier for a person of average means to study for a standardized test than it is to buy the transport necessary to an international math/science/business/water polo competition.

It's fundamentally impossible for a person to do well in ice hockey if they cannot afford the hundreds of dollars in skates and protective equipment needed to play the game. Taking a standardized test is usually free. Does money give an advantage in both scenarios? Yes, but at least it's not an absolute barrier in the second.