That doesn’t make a timed foot race a subjective measure, IMO.
I mean, it's okay to use the best imperfect metric you have available; so acknowledging "the metric is not fully correlated and depends on other factors" does not mean anything, the only argument that has weight is "hey, this other metric has better correlation with The True Thing and less bias, use that instead"; if the remaining alternative metrics are even less objective and more biased than SAT/ACT tests (which IMHO is the case), then removing SAT tests won't and can't improve things, despite these tests being flawed.
to be clear, i still think the sat is better than everything else because preparation is much more legible and accessible compared to all of the other ways to stand out for college applications.
Pointing out shortcomings of standardized tests is one thing. Advocating for eliminating what seems to be our most equal/standardized/objective/whatever measurement without a replacement seems like a bad idea to me.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidie...
In my not-so-humble opinion, however, the best way to prep for the verbal SAT is to read books. Novels are fine.
For the math, prep by taking all the math classes your school offers, and make an effort to learn all the material.
Do that, and you won't need prep classes, and you'll also be well prepared for college.
Which begs the question, who exactly do you admit to your school, and why?
so imo getting rid of standardized tests does get rid of a subjective rating of an applicant which is good in theory, but when you leave in all of the other subjective ratings that are much more difficult for disadvantaged students to do well on it who is it actually benefiting?