While I agree with much of the rest of your post, this is incorrect. You are committing a classing logical fallacy. You are claiming that the logical conclusion of the statement “most kid being accepted to ‘elite’ colleges are wealthy”, is “most wealthy kids are being accepted to ‘elite’ colleges”.
So by demonstrating that the second statements is false, you cannot prove that the first is also false. This is the same as saying “since all black birds are not ravens, ergo your claim that all ravens are black and are birds is false”.
Wealth is a requirement for better SAT scores, better GPAs, and more impressive SATs, but it is not the only requirement.
An “average” kid, raised in a poor family, without good nutrition, decent healthcare, safe places to study, while missing breakfasts, having to work after school, and having a poor school, and their SAT score will likely be below 800. Provide them with decent meals, space in school to study, some extra time after school, and their SAT will likely be around 1000. Provide them with their own room, private tutors and SAT prep, etc, and their SAT score will likely be around 1200 or higher. Take an above average kid, and the scores will be more like 1000, 1200 and 1400or a bit higher.
Money won’t allow a below average student to get a 1500, but family income will help a smart kids get a 1500 instead of a 1200. Since most “elite” colleges won’t look at a student with an SAT score of 1200, it is fair to say that money is a critical requirement for many wealthy kids with SAT scores of 1500.
So, to even be considered for an “elite” college, most poor kids would have to be smart enough that, if they were wealthy, they would likely have a 1600, or close to that, on their SATs.
While it’s challenging for most wealthy kids to gain admission to “elite” colleges, it is nigh well impossible for poor kids.
My kid, who is unquestionably extremely bright, would likely never have gained admissions to anything approaching an “elite” college, had we not been middle class/upper middle class. She went through some pretty difficult times in middle and high school, and, had she had two parents who had to work long hours, and were exhausted every evening, we likely would not have been able to identify and deal with the issues. Had we not have the money, time, and the confidence provided by the privilege of being upper middle class and educated, we likely would not have been able to advocate for her, and make sure that she got the right treatment, while, at the same time,. the negative impacts on her life were minimized. At almost any high school in a lower SES/lower education level area, she would have not been able to regain academic momentum after some of the issues with which she dealt, nor would we have had the tools and the resources to help her do so.
Finally, the more money a family has, the more it compensates for other things which their kid lacks. A $2.5 million donation would have gotten any of those kids from the admissions scandal into whatever college they wanted.
All that being said, I do agree that trying to solve these issues when the kids get to college is like closing the proverbial barn door after it has been vacated by its proverbial inhabitant. If we would provide low income families with good schools, meals for kids, tutoring when needed, and safe places for play and study, that would do more for providing these kids with the chance to attend competitive colleges than adding “adversity scores” to SAT tests.
Poor kids should be able to develop and demonstrate their abilities, whether they be in academics, the arts, physical activities, or any other.