So their efforts didn't work.
If I flip your numbers around, it actually sounds pretty good: a full quarter of the alumni come from the bottom 80% of zip codes!
But note that teams built from cognitively diverse members are far more productive while homogeneous teams dramatically underperform.
https://hbr.org/2017/03/teams-solve-problems-faster-when-the...
Add that to the zip code correlation that is the strongest indicator of SAT scores and it does matter.
Students without parents that are college graduates are also at a disadvantage no matter what their potential is.
It is one of the barriers to social mobility.
It is possible both for SAT scores to predict a person's potential to contribute in cognitively demanding fields AND for there to be a strong correlation between SAT score and parental income/zip code/etc. In fact, this is true even of a theoretically perfect measure that can somehow peer into the future of every prospective student were they to be admitted.
Is there some reason you expect that the children of people who did not go to college will have the same level of potential as those born to college graduates? Would this hold true of the children of professors, or Nobel winners? Is there any place for 'nature' in your worldview, or is it purely 'nurture'?
This is also why the SAT was adopted by Harvard in 1934. Prior to that, most students attending Harvard came from private New England boarding schools that could only be afforded by the upper class. They saw an opportunity to diversify the student body by testing the general public and admitting those that scored highest. As an added benefit, the SAT was much easier to grade than previous essay-based admissions standards, and so it reduced cost for the University.