I am of the mind that the best students or smartest students are not always the people with the best grades or best ACT scores. I think every program should allow a good amount of people in with lesser scores. I am firmly against increasing selectivity in order to improve arbitrary US News rankings, which are a travesty and a shame that anyone actually abides by.
The U of M is a land grant university, and part of its mission of serving Minnesota should be serving those who aren't A- or better students.
I also have a problem with tests like the ACT, SAT, and LSAT, specifically their timing aspect. People have days or weeks to complete reading assignments and homework. Timing people on how fast they process information isn't a true indicator of their mental ability. For example, let's say A gets a 25 on the ACT and B gets 28. A left 20 questions blank or had to guess due to time constraints, while B finished the test with time to spare. Without the time constraint, A would score higher than B. A is smarter than B, but B scored higher because A reads or comprehends slower than B. In the real world, in the vast majority of businesses, you would want A as your employee, but for some reason B is regarded as a better student because B tests better when timed.
I also think the ACT and SAT are biased toward white males with money, as evidence has shown that these students score higher than every other race, gender, and demographic. I think that's a problem.