I'm not sure about this. I'm not a fan of the ACT/SAT (I've never taken them and somehow wound up with a master's degree) - but what I worry about them is that it removes one somewhat objective measure that you could point to in scoring. When you remove that, well, what do you look at? I think that's where we see students who come from well-off families have an even larger advantage because they can be captain of the sports team, the debate team, volunteer at the hospital, etc. Whereas if you are poor and smart - you work a second job to support your family, or you spend as much time not at home as possible.

Good luck convincing an admissions officer that working a second job is more "valuable" in the process than doing all these other things when they want to maintain the "image" of the university.

Without an ACT/SAT you'll also probably get more applicants hoping to hit the lottery from an admissions officer too.

I will say that obviously wealthy parents can pay for a tutor for the ACT/SAT, but a poor kid can get a practice book for $20 and at least have a shot.