In the beginning of the article, there seems to be an implicit claim that this kind of testing is bad because those who score on the border of a "cutoff" only have a probabilistic chance of making it into these coveted schools. The author seems to be suggesting that the error prone nature of measurement instruments means that we need to create something that is free of error or we need to stop using them all together. Unfortunately such instruments will never be error free and there doesn't seem to be an acceptable alternative for collecting predictive information. The measurement community will continue to improve on their instruments, but it seems like the only real remedy given the author's criticism is for these schools to just admit everyone so that nobody misses out. This, of course, isn't realistic.<p>When resources are thin and there is no way to deduce a provably optimal allocation, we start having to make guesses given the best possible information and algorithms. Until we can come up with something better, schools will continue needing instruments like these (as well as other tools) for making the best possible guesses.