It's not leveling the playing field among social classes, but it is leaving an official door open for individuals who have a knack for tests but lack the support resources of richer folk. That's better then a closed door, and is easier to audit and evaluate than informal "holistic" admissions that may carry all sorts of implicit and hard to detect biases of their own. I'm certainly glad it was a door open to me some decades ago.
Truly leveling the playing field of society is probably not a thing that can happen.
I agree that it’s better than a closed door. But I don’t think the argument is between binary options.
>easier to audit and evaluate
This is where I think a lot of approaches go wrong. Because it’s easier doesn’t mean it’s the best or most meritocratic. At a certain point, it seems like we start optimizing to make HR personnel’s life easier, rather than the true outcome.
Not to say there's no better alternative being used somewhere, but "holistic" admissions practices often amount to rewarding nontraditional students who prove good at mimicking at WASP class signals or who fit some patronizing, objectifying trope.
If you're aiming for meritocracy, those are not an improvement over standardized tests or prior academic acheivement (and neither are they doing a good job of culturing authentic, plurlistic diversity).
Truly leveling the playing field of society is probably not a thing that can happen.