Lani Guinier, Harvard Law professor certainly seems to think so.

Richard Greenwald writes at the Boston Globe:

‘The Tyranny of the Meritocracy’ by Lani Guinier

We all understand the importance of college in the modern economy. This signal economic importance leads to the SAT becoming the sole difference between getting into a great school and potentially being set for life, or not. Students sweat the process. Families spend thousands to prepare children, and schools pride themselves on their students’ average SAT scores.

It’s time, writes Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier, that we question not just the value of that one test, but frankly, the entire system that claims this test measures merit. “[W]e need to change our understanding of merit,” she says–it is too narrow. Her new book, “The Tyranny of the Meritocracy,’’ “propose[s] a new framework, one focused on advancing democratic rather than testocratic merit.” It is a scheme that reminds colleges that their duty “is to give students an educational experience in which merit is cultivated, not merely scored.”

The first half of the book details her critique of the current system, the main problem being that “the SAT still promises something it can’t deliver: a way to measure merit.” According to Guinier, research shows little correlation between SAT scores and first-year college grades. There is, however, a link between income, race, and test results. “If we can agree that the SAT, LSAT, and other standardized tests most reliably measure a student’s household income, ethnicity, and level of parental education,” says Guinier, “then can we see that reliance on such test scores narrows the student body to those who come from particular households.”