I think the whole notion of removing the standardized test scores is fraught with challenges. I, like basically every person I knew who went to GT, knew kids freshman year who showed up as a top 5% student in their high school only to fail out 1st semester. You need a standard measuring stick to evaluate a kid's academic ability. It isn't fair to anyone (the student who gets in but is unprepared/fails/is hosed for looking at transfer options or falls WAY BEHIND but stays at GT, the student who doesn't get in and could have better used that spot, the teachers/support staff at the Institute who are working with kids that aren't prepared for the workload, the parents who foot the bill, the list goes on and on).
I understand the argument that there is a subset of our kids who score disproportionately lower on the SAT / ACT, but that means we should rework those tests to be more indicative of the skills and fundamentals needed to be successful in college. We are treating symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself which is fix the broken K-12 situation that leads to kids being behind on reading comprehension/math/science etc.
Other than (as previously mentioned) kids coming in for a one and done kind of experience - which isn't what GT is all about - I don't see this being a good thing. Kids nationwide are going to find themselves in trouble academically and schools are going to have one less, flawed as it may be, data point to assess who can be tutored up and who won't be successful here. At least with the athletes someone from the school is talking with / evaluating the kids - for the general population (if we move to expanding the admissions requirement long term) it'll be a recipe for many mismatches.
