It's occurred to me that I've probably come off the mark, so I'm going to try to succinctly and
clearly state my arguments.
The SAT is, by its very nature, racist and classist. Those within a specific socioeconomic strata - ranging from upper-middle class to upper-class - can afford coaching to pass the exam. While not all of these people are white, the median wealth distribution of the nation is largely concentrated among white people. The chart at the bottom of
this section, which is backed up by the evidence within the section, illustrates this point.* What this means is that white people are, by and large, in a better financial position to work with SAT coaches and tutors. They're able to afford private school education which allows students more intimate access to teachers and education. They and their children are able to afford completing high school.
The SAT is also deeply, inextricably Eurocentric. It evolved from the IQ test, and while that test's current form bears no superficial resemblance to its roots it nevertheless emphasizes both methods of learning that are culturally European and knowledge itself that has Western roots. And there's a reason for this.
The development of both the SAT and the IQ are charged with racism. The IQ test evolved in part from ideas on eugenics developed by Francis Galton and carried forward by Charles Davenport, two influential figures in the eugenics movement that would later push for the IQ test to be applied as the standard for immigrants trying to enter America. These ideas were picked up by SAT inventor Carl Brighton, who proclaimed that natural-born Americans were the most intellectually superior race and that negroes were, naturally, inferior.
These tests were invented by racists and charged with racism in order to keep those non-white races from achieving in American society. The very measurements of intelligence they purport to express are deeply flawed because they measure nothing except aptitude at the test, which has only deviated from its original design in terms of questions asked. There are plentiful studies, dating especially from the '90s, which examine the IQ's actual viability and find it wanting.
So, we've got a test that upper-middle- to upper-class white people are typically capable of passing, both due to their financial circumstances and the nature of the test itself. And we're still using it to measure aptitude. It's the metric for this chart.
Now, you've got a bunch of black artists on the lower end of that chart, and you've got a bunch of white artists – or at the very least artists that appeal to what I'll admit are stereotypically white tastes – on the upper end of the chart. What does this say about the test? What stereotypes does it reinforce? What purpose does it serve except as self-congratulatory pats on the back for fans of Tool and Radiohead and Sufjan Stevens and Counting Crows, statements followed by "Well, I'm no Beethoven fan, but at least I don't listen to Lil Wayne"? What does it say about those artists? What does it say about their audience?
This chart isn't classist? Isn't racist? It's class and race issues bundled up conveniently in one chart. It sums up the problems with SAT testing and IQ testing and admittance and the wage gap and everything.
*If you want to get into a discourse on contemporary Asian approaches to modern scholarship and why they seem to be an aberration in terms of median wealth, I'm unfortunately no expert and can't really do anything save extrapolate the modern Japanese approach. In the late 19th century, Japan's largely stagnant feudal system was suddenly confronted with an economically and militarily powerful colonial West. In response to a few shameful military defeats, the Japanese people began aggressive campaign of "Westernizing" the nation. Reforms were geared towards adopting, synthesizing and perfecting Western methods of thought and practice in fields ranging from government to military to - you guessed it - education. The regression to feudal fealty to the Emperor in the lead-up to the second World War followed by the eventual decimation of Japan at the end of the War served to exacerbate this, but the focus shifted towards establishing superiority in what the Japanese sensed would become the dominant geopolitical field in the latter half of the century - the global economy. To this day, economic policy is closely related with a push in schools to excel at academic studies as well as extracurricular activity and, when you take this approach in conjunction with the emphasis on position and social status tied to wealth that erupted violently into an economically devastated Japanese culture in the aftermath of WWII, students take this very closely to heart.
Again, I can't speak with any authority on this, and I am painting with a broad brush, but given both Asia's historical animosity towards Japan and Asian governments' behaviour regarding economic policy and the push to establish themselves by developing a strong economy I can only extrapolate that the citizens and educational institutions of other Asian nations would aim for similar goals.
