@Data10 provided some data, and far that data definitely doesn’t support your supposition that TO would lead to a significant increase in admissions for rich prep school kids and a corresponding drop in lower income admissions. So far, the data at least suggests the opposite.
You dismiss this, arguing the “modest” changes would have happened anyway, even without TO. The NYT article you posted addressed this . . .
But although fewer people from those groups applied over all, some selective schools saw big increases from students who are typically underrepresented at elite institutions. The University of California, Berkeley, received 38 percent more applications from Black, Latino and Native American hopefuls than in 2019. New York University saw 22 percent more applications from both Black and Latino students.
There is little doubt what is driving those gains: making standardized test scores optional for applicants. About 1,700 schools did not require SAT or ACT scores this year.
. . .
Cornell had made a significant effort in recent years to expand the diversity of its applicant pool, but Mr. Burdick, who oversees admissions, said nothing had as big of an impact as waiving test scores. “We didn’t see an expansion of wealthy kids saying, ‘Well, I’ll apply to Cornell.’ That was already happening,” he said.
Yes, applications are down at less competitive schools, but it is beyond a leap in logic to blame this year’s switch to TO for the multi-faceted problems that small privates and less competitive publics have been facing for many years. As the same article explains, Covid exacerbated this problem, not TO.