As a 40-year professional in learning development who is trained and certified in this subject, I'm going to gently object to this term of art. Multiple-choice tests are not objective. Never. Not even math tests. A great deal of subjectivity goes into writing questions-and-answers, from scenarios written to the cat-and-mouse game of having to place the correct answer right in front of the candidate and then distract him or her away from it. (The incorrect selections on a multiple-choice test question are called that: distractors.) Even choosing what to test about is highly subjective. With subjectivity comes the risk of bias. This battle has been fought for decades, so I won't re-hash it here. Except to say that bias comes in two forms: actions and outcomes. Standardized testing tends to create the latter for myriad reasons, many beyond the scope of tests and measurements, even if the former is controlled for. These risks of bias are lessened because the test is so narrowly focused. But it is still at test for which no curriculum was taught. As such, it is fraught with potential problems, as all such predictive tests are. Better would be achievement tests that actually measure how much of what was taught was learned. Still potential for subjectivity, but less so than the you-don't-know-what-we're-testing-but-come-take-it-anyway approach to admissions tests.