Of course, there may be institutions for whom this research does not hold true.

It has been all the Woke rage at universities to cancel usage of SATs and ACTs as part of their admission's process.  All in the putative name of Equity.  Because racist SAT/ACTs discriminate against people of color.  Except Asians. 

And this has nothing to do with the 5% decline in enrollment.  No sir.  Nothing to do with that at all.

Of course it is all nonsense.  Universities serve three functions, at least historically they have.  1) They select leaders of tomorrow.  2) They educate them.  3) They select the best and brightest by being the only institutions which are legally allowed to select based on IQ (SAT/ACT equivalents).

If companies and institutions can be confident that a university's student body does indeed have the behavioral attributes of leaders, has a good education, and are exceptionally bright (IQ) all they have to do is recruit from those universities.  

Getting rid of SAT/ACTs is the universities shooting themselves in the foot and with no real benefit.  Already, having enjoyed forty years of expansion, most of them are overextended.  There are too many universities chasing too few students.  The cost of a university education is now so high, particularly in non-extinguishable loans, that the cost-benefit equation has, for many if not most potential students, become decidedly negative.

For institutions hiring students out of college, there is now the ever present risk that you are hiring a Woke cuckoo who will destroy the nest.  With universities now getting rid of SAT/ACTs there is no longer even the confidence that universities are selecting the best and the brightest.

At the same time, the argument that this was being done to increase diversity and equity is entirely specious.  SAT/ACT results are reliable.  You don't have to guess.  Producing a candidate narrative to demonstrate in essays and activities why a candidate should be admitted is purely an upper income class activity.  SAT/ACTs are the only reliable way for kids in the bottom two quintiles to even come to the attention of an Admissions Director, much less be admitted.

Getting rid of SAT/ACTs harm kids in the bottom two quintiles and makes it easier for universities to increase a paying population of students.  It is a shabby and low rent move.

And ultimately self-defeating.  As purchasers of the production of universities, i.e. companies, can no longer rely on universities for being a filter for intelligence, good behavioral attributes, and a good knowledge, then there is no point for paying a premium for the candidate as was the case in the past.  

A couple of articles explore these issues.  The SAT Isn’t What’s Unfair by Kathryn Paige Harden is one.  The subheading is "MIT brings back a test that, despite its reputation, helps low-income students in an inequitable society."  Quite right.  She is referencing the recent announcement - We are reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles by Stu Schmill '86.

As Schmill notes

Not having SATs/ACT scores to consider tends to raise socioeconomic barriers to demonstrating readiness for our education.

Although our analysis is specific to MIT, our findings directionally align with a major study conducted by the University of California’s Standardized Testing Task Force, which found that including SAT/ACT scores predicted undergraduate performance better than grades alone, and also helped admissions officers identify well-prepared students from less-advantaged backgrounds. It is also consistent with independent research compiled by education researcher Susan Dynarski that shows standardized testing can be an effective way to identify talented disadvantaged students who would otherwise go unrecognized. Of course, there may be institutions for whom this research does not hold true, but the findings are very robust for MIT, and have been for many, many years.

Hopefully we will see more institutions recovering from their insanity in the near future.  Student and employers both enjoy rigorous, predictable and equitable candidate selection process as allowed and enabled by quantitative tests such as SAT/ACTs.  

And I do love the snarky reading of MIT's announcement.  "Of course, there may be institutions for whom this research does not hold true" - which I read as another way of saying that other institutions not as committed to finding and selecting the best and the brightest as MIT might not need what SAT/ACTs provide.