But how do we use qualitative judgment in a way that is fair (and not personal/subjective/not easily manipulated for money/legacy/athletics/etc.)?
I'm not against tests, but in the US there is no standard curriculum, not even for math. In general, tests aren't used to find the most intelligent student; they're designed to find the students who are best-prepared and
most likely to succeed in college. That's why its called a standard "aptitude" test. However, aptitude does not predict success, and the people who do the best on the entrance exams do not necessarily end up at the top of their graduating class.
So, the elite colleges also ask the student to explain why he or she wants to be admitted. It's partly a way to find out how well a student can express himself. More importantly, it will illustrate whether the student has the potential to make a contribution to the college and its mission. If it's a divinity school, and the applicant says that he wants to make money ... you see what I mean.
It's important to remember that at one time all colleges were elite because they were for the children of the rich. Harvard opened as a school for clergy. Then the wealthy sent their children there to learn. There was no test or application. In fact, until the 20th century, people paid to get into Harvard, Yale, etc and paid for grades. But, one day it was decided that the college should be a meritocracy. So, from then on, there were entrance tests. It became hard to get in, but almost anyone could try. Rich parents would donate large sums and build student residences with their names on them. Of course, their children were accepted. To this day, admitted students are put in one of the 13 "houses."
Anyway, a person can get just as good an education at a community college as at Harvard. It's not even necessary to go to college. Any Harvard professor has written at least two books, and they're used as the textbooks, and often the subject of the lectures. You can pick one up on amazon.com or find them at a public library. Of course, being able to talk to the author makes a huge difference, but only grad students get to do that. Undergrads deal with teaching assistants (grads).
I feel strongly about this because I've attended and taught at Ivy League colleges and city colleges. The students at the Ivies are not more intelligent than any others. However, they are generally more prepared. Some have been groomed for it since childhood. The parents expectations are so high that they will do whatever they can to make that dream come true. Not being admitted becomes a disaster. ... Meh. I taught my children not to depend on the educational system for an education. It was their responsibility to educate themselves. It has worked for them.
Ideally, there'd be a standard national test that every student would be required to take. It's unlikely that will happen here because of political and social reasons. Sure, we could use math, but that still wouldn't predict who would do well at law, teaching English, nursing, or archaeology. I think that most jobs require on the job training. At my last school, some students complained that they couldn't understand their math teacher's English.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."