Debate on Ending SAT Gains Ground

After reading this article on the New York Times about a debate on ending the SAT, I decided to create a blog post to share and possibly get some views from others. A while ago, Charles Murray proposed in an article to abolish the SAT. Although, arguing that a simple IQ test would only be necessary. Since so many college officials and parents are unsatisfied with the SAT, even those who don't believe in Mr. Murray’s theories could easily find themselves agreeing with him. Most critics of the SAT believe that the test is flawed, or it's favored towards to wealthier students who can afford classes and private tutors. Though, unlike most critics of the SAT, Mr. Murray doesn't agree with this. Instead, he recognizes that most people do not agree with him and believe the test is rigged to favor the rich. “It is a corrosive symbol of privilege,” he said. Mr. Murray believes that college admissions offices should reject the SAT and substitute other standardized tests - subject or "achievement tests" that gauge knowledge in specific classes or courses, such as: History, Chemistry, and Physics. His doubts about the exam first began after he read a 2001 study and follow-up done at the University of California, finding that the combination of high school grades and standardized subject test scores predicted success in college just as well as the SAT. 

I don't necessarily agree with what Mr. Murray is arguing. It seems to me that his argument's backed-up really well. I agree with the IQ test and the subject/achievement testing. The SAT shouldn't only focus of English and Mathematics, although those are the two core courses throughout high school and college, it should also focus on some History and possibly even Science, as the ACT does. What do you think about this? Do you agree with Mr. Murray's argument?