Supposedly "standardized" tests are never going to be standardized when there is a massive volume of resources (requiring money, time, and in most cases some form of long-distance transit) that are effectively only available to the upper-middle class. Of course some students are at a disadvantage when they take it. The SAT is the worst offender for a number of reasons but the amount of time it takes to prepare* for the LSAT, MCAT, GRE, etc. are similar.
Of course there needs to be some corrective to address this. I really doubt that this score will be implemented correctly and it's rather ham-handed but I applaud the effort.
To those completely against standardized testing how would colleges tell the difference between a very good high school with harsh grading and a sh**t one?
This is probably solvable if schools submit information about average grade, enrollment, extracurriculars and advanced classes offered, nearby property values, teacher turnover, etc. If the concern is that grades are uneven from school to school there are ways to create profiles for schools to tell whcih are more likely to be "very good" or "sh**t".
At least there's still the ACT. (I was under the impression that it was customary for graduating students to take both, because you never know on which one you might score better.)
I graduated from high school in the early 2010s and only took the SAT.
