"however there's no real alternative given that it is administered in dozens of countries (utilising dozens of languages) at a time, 6 times a year, and that results are produced in well under a month. It's also arguable that it's better to leave the elemet of chance to the candidate than introduce it at the marking stage where so much can depend on the competence and, in arts subejcts, the opinions of the examiner." - But the test would surely favour American candidates anyway, naturally? If it's written by Americans, I'd expect a certain sense of style to these questions that US students may be familiar to, to an extent. Even if the papers are translated or whatever, I think those from foreign nations are still slightly disadvantaged relative to US candidates.
"however there's no real alternative" - Why is the normal method of assessment inferior? And if they rush to get printed scores out, thats their problem; it does not make their method of assessment anymore worthy, just because they want to rush and get results out.
That's what you said - So there's another fault, using this method of assessment for reducing administration, marking, time, money etc. rather than gaining the most reflective results possible - I thought this mattered the most, but clearly not, from your above reply.