^ Low level in terms of reasoning ability required. Think of the task as being “easy” but complex. That the math test has a very cursory treatment of certain more advanced topics only serves to highlight the inequity of the testing regime generally. Relatively low ability, but privileged, kids can do very well as a result of coaching and quality of schools, and therefore those seeking to maintain the status quo will prefer this sort of testing regime.
By contrast, imagine a testing task that is “hard” but simple. Such a task is more sensitive to different levels of ability, and less sensitive to environmental privileges. It would have more meaning imo for college admissions, especially as colleges already have extensive data in the form of GPA, course rigor, school environment, AP scores, SAT 2 scores, etc. from which to infer academic preparation and motivation. Relatively high ability kids - regardless of privilege - will prefer this sort of regime, as will people seeking to upset the status quo.
(Of course, any test that involves any cognitive task is going to involve basic ability at some level, and that is why we see predictable score variation regardless of preparation effects. The current system is clearly not sensitive enough to measuring basic ability at the top end of college admissions, or else one wouldn’t see the clustering of scores at the extreme top end - e.g, the 75th percentile at a number of schools is right at - or within one silly error - of the highest numerical score possible. It’s difficult to see why making the tests harder would have any deleterious effects at colleges of lower selectivity, as what is always being compared are individuals, not scores per se. One way to see this is to look at the average SAT scores for, say, Yale pre-1995 and then after 1995: they jumped about 100 points, but of course there could not have been any change in the underlying average ability of the admit pool in a few years.)