Is it more ethical to hire a tutor to prepare or to cheat on a test? This question was inspired by this fascinating discussion about cheating. 

If grades, degrees, test scores are important for getting a job/internship/assistantship, even more so than the actual knowledge that they measure, I can see how cheating on a test can be considered unethical. Is it ethically better to hire an expensive tutor to prepare, say, for the SAT or for the GMAT, or for some test at school, than to attempt to cheat on the exam? 

Here is some context: New York Times: Tutors Hold Key to Higher Test Scores, for a High Fee .

Assume that the tutor has no secret/insider knowledge about the test. Assume that the tutor is essentially teaching you only some tricks for beating this particular test, no real knowledge. Assume also that many people in class do not have the money to hire a tutor of the same qualification.

Conversely, is it okay to cheat for those less financially fortunate, if they cannot afford a tutor?

As further context, Princeton Review explicitly states that their SAT prep program does only one thing: raises scores. Princeton Review argues that test prep is right and ethical, because (paraphrasing) SAT is a stupid, almost meaningless thing, and those without quality test preparation are put at a disadvantage.
Measuring the ability to learn tricks (including financial ability) is actually of use to most employers etc., while measuring the ability to cheat is if anything a measure of what employers etc. want to avoid (since typically the risk/reward scheme for them is very different from individuals).

Thus, while having a tutor is not completely fair to those who cannot afford it, it is still a reasonable proxy for desirability.  Cheating is (usually) not.  So it's ethically better than cheating inasmuch as the right people for the positions will tend to be selected for them.