It's weird to me that standardized tests were demonized as anti-equity rather than GPA. You can always get extra help with homework, projects, etc. if you have a better funded support system. Single subject/unit tests in high school are also much more narrow in scope and easier to prepare for. A standardized test on the other hand is so wide in breadth that raw abilities will shine more.
I'm also surprised it's so low, because I feel that doesn't align with my anecdotal experience. Perhaps part of the problem is they only did the analysis on "...for freshman admission between 1994 and 2011 for whom complete data were available on all covariates". Perhaps wealthy families are less likely to submit family income data, or the income data is somehow related to FAFSA, in which case wealthy families will be under represented. Also note, they used family income as a proxy for SES, which is understandable but also not completely correct. Many wealthy people have no-to-low income for tax purposes.
Its because the people pushing for these changes are privileged and stupid, so they want the most gameable version to still be there ie GPA and extracurriculars and not the SAT.
The SAT/ACT prep school industry is a thing. I grew up with many, many kids whose (wealthy) parents sent them to SAT prep summer school every year from age 12 to 17.
Oh for sure. But there's also a huge industry for private tutors, homework help, writing help, etc- which more directly translates dollars to GPA points. My thinking is that the translation between dollars to SAT/ACT points is much less than that.
