So as soon as the UCs decided to phase out the SAT I saw a lot of posts pop up complaining about how GPA or ECs are more unfair than taking a standardized test.

In today's era there are so many free resources you can take advantage of, I've seen people recommend Khan Academy over all other forms of test prep. The CB also offer fee waivers to low income families for the SAT.

A lot of people who mention SAT tutors seem to forget that actual tutors are a thing as well. Beyond that, while a grade is able to be changed months after a class was taken, an SAT score is tamper proof.

Also, while SAT or ACT testing centers are held pretty much everywhere, the same can't be said for great ECs. Many are dependant on location, connections, or being able to pay for the expensive activities. It's hard to win a national competition if you can't afford to attend.

Even LORs benefit wealthy students. Many of my first gen friends didn't know about their importance until they started on the common app, so they were unable to lay the groundwork with a teacher in the spring.

Overall, the college admissions system is heavily in favor of the wealthy, so it feels odd to vilify the test that you could walk in and ace in one shot, instead of the activities that require constant deposits of both time and money that low income students just don't have.