If this happened at a corrupt country, you can bet that university would be full of students that entered there just by nepotism, it is also very effective for discriminating against minorities.
I get that USA isn’t as corrupt as many of the third world countries but it is going there with slow and steady steps, removing SAT scores might make USA lose it’s scientific status in near future.
Except the argument by people is it's NOT objective. I think the argument goes something like this: rich kid gets full time tutor privately or through school and is able to do significantly better on the SAT/ACT because they have specifically prepared for it.
It doesn't mean they are smarter, or even a better student. It means they have been prepped better for it than their peers that don't have the same luxuries.
If 95% of the time a student scores higher after taking an expensive prep course, does that mean scoring higher really means much? Especially with SO many people taking the test, that little bit makes a difference where are you on the curve.. perhaps people are thinking that the kids whose parents can afford the time and money to give them a slightly advantage on the test doesn't translate into that person being a better student.