This article doesn’t mention another way in which dropping SATs can increase revenues, namely that it could ultimately limit the ability of lower ranking colleges to use merit to win high stat students from wealthier families away from need-only schools.
It seems to me that this is in part an attempt by need-focused colleges to gain an advantage by imposing their own preferences on competing schools that use merit as a driver of aid (eg UCs vs USC) or at the very least discredit those colleges that have relied on merit to attract high stat students and thereby improve their position in the rankings.
If families have fewer choices of colleges where they can pay less than their EFC, then on average they will end up paying more.
It’s interesting to see the tone of an article in the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-it-fair-to-award-scholarships-based-on-the-sat-11580639400) which notes that “Universities use merit aid to compete for students. Merit scholarships can make students feel wanted and prompt families to think they are getting a deal. The awards also help campuses lure top students from even more prestigious schools, a few dozen of which don’t offer merit aid at all.”
The WSJ goes on to cite criticism of this approach from a need based school: “The exams increase inequality when you look at who is getting access to aid,” said Laura Perna, professor at the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania.