I think there’s an issue on how these data are examined. There is a huge amount of data backing up the claim that the school attended influences the SAT, etc.

I think there’s an issue on how these data are examined. There is a huge amount of data backing up the claim that the school attended influences the SAT, etc. There is a huge amount of evidence backing up the claim that SAT/ACT aren’t 100% predictive of later academic success. But “not being 100% predictive” does not mean “is not predictive”. The core problem the removal of SAT, etc is attempting (imo hamfistedly) to mitigate is the following chain: (1) Student A comes from affluent family, in an affluent region. (2) Student A goes to a private school with better teachers, etc, or because it’s an affluent region the public schools have better teachers, etc (3) Student A’s family can afford additional SAT, etc tutors Now imagine a somehow identical Student B, but from a poor family in a poor region. Before any other factors become involved, they don’t get the benefits of 2 or 3. We would expect that on average 2&3 result in higher scores, and so a higher acceptance rate, and a higher rate of scholarships for Student A vs Student B. Again this is on average. The TLDR is given two kids who have identical mental ability, the one from the richer family will, on average, have better scores. So schools say let’s drop the scores entirely, but that is also clearly nonsense: Even in this exact scenario Student A will do better in uni or what have you, because part of why they got a better score is that they have been taught and learned more - IE they absolutely do know more and are more academically proficient than Student B by this point. Moreover we know (because of yet more studies), Student A will tend to continue to do better than Student B once they’re at school, even once B “catches up”, because we know that people with fewer external stressors perform better at everything. So even if we discard the score based entry to unis, we’ll see a strong correlation between original score and subsequent academic success. So while I understand the desire to remove the “accident of birth” factor that benefits the lucky and penalizes the unlucky, simply removing the test requirements is fairly questionable as an approach. This is also before asking about Students C and D who are the peers of students A and B - surely the better scoring of A and C (or B and D) is who you should prefer, but now you’re discarding theoretically ideal and unbiased data in favour of…?