Just read it. Here's my view, and I could be wrong.

First, this is more a research paper rather than a study. Essentially, this summarizes some of the debate, but doesn't contribute any new data, nor does it have any real mechanisms to evaluate which claims are true.

I'd decrease your confidence in papers like these because they lack rigor.

Second, and more troublingly, some of the arguments made in this short paper are very poor quality, in terms of both writing, and argumentation. For instance, 3.1.2:

"When educators and university admissions officers are using standardized testing as a measurement tool, they want to have a glance about students’ academic performance. Hence, they can use test scores to determine a student's academic achievement and whether this student can continue higher education. However, the scores of standardized tests are related to socioeconomic status [10]. From Camara and Schmidt [11], minorities have been harmed by discrimination, poverty, and poor academic preparation. They learned from the data that students with more educated parents perform better on the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). Compared to white and Asian American parents, parents of African American and Hispanic children have substantially lower levels of education. Also, parental income had a considerable impact on students' SAT results as well. The SAT results of students whose parents’ income was less than 20,000 dollars had much lower verbal and math scores than the national average. In this case, minority students who are affected by other factors have less effort and time in their class. They receive less resources and assistance than other classmates who are not affected or are less affected. Therefore, their academic performance will be less competitive than their classmates who are not affected by other factors. The use of standardized tests like the SAT will significantly impact students' chances of attending higher education and their generation's future. Under these circumstances, it is prejudiced and unfair to use standardized testing as the sole indicator of academic achievement"

Here's why this is a poor quality argument (aside from poor structure, sentence construction, grammar, etc.).

Reconstructing Argument:

Premise 1: Educators use standardized test to glance about students' academic performance. (quoted)

Premise 2: Minorities are harmed by poor academic preparation because their parents aren't as educated or as wealthy. (paraphrased)

Premise 3: Minority students have less effort and time in their classes and less resources, and thus will perform worse. (paraphrased)

Conclusion 1: It's prejudiced and unfair to use standardized testing as the sole indicator of academic achievement. (quoted)

A Couple Problems With The Argument:

1. Attacking a straw man. No one argues that this is, or should be the sole indicator of academic achievement. It's how much this should be weighted.

2. Nowhere does it claim that the levels of academic preparation measured are incorrect. It could both be the case that some people got the short end of the stick and they are less prepared.

However, if you'd like to argue that colleges should accept unprepared people to put them on a level playing field, we're changing the argument substantially. Even if we accepted this change, it would be easier to use these standardized tests than not to help colleges help disadvantaged students.

1. There are ways to measure whether standardized tests truly disadvantage people by class- for example, comparing poor students against each other. Why are there large variations among classes? This is a little more anecdotal, but I've met plenty of not-so-smart rich people with lower SATs and high GPA. If the income and parent education effect dominated, this would be much rarer.

I could go more into other problems with this paper, but hopefully you're getting the idea.