Even liberal instituations and researchers are quickly coming back-around and saying that standardized tests scores are a very useful tool for college admissions AND requiring test scores improves admissions for under-represented groups. IMO, abandoning test scores was a ham-fisted attempt to mold admissions to the whims of social-engineers. Often very well inentioned, but mostly it backfired.

I see reason to think BYU's admissions have been adversely affected by the test-optional standard. Their most recently admitted freshman class had a 75%-25% GPA range of 3.86 - 4.0. That means that some number GREATER than 25% of admitted students had a perfect GPA. BYU does not weight GPA, so maybe 30+% of admitted students had perfect grades. That is great!

But, simultaneous to this rise in GPA metrics, the ACT scores did not improve. Which is . . . odd? I would have thought that being test-optional meant that students only submitted ACT scores if they were really good and the result would be an increase in ACT.

LIke the national research has found, the problem is that grades are entirely variable across schools, regions, students, classes, teachers, etc. And grades are more easily manipulated (that sounds bad, it isn't meant to) by people who have the resources to manipulate them. The result is that privilege-bias in admissions is even stronger when standardized testing is not used.

TLDR; Standardized testing is a useful, fair, and even equitable tool for admissions. Not using it is a mistake.