>OP's point was "This sucks, they're doing away with objective criteria."
Actually, standardized testing does not represent objective criteria for a number of reasons, so that's an incorrect assumption.
But, my point was why do we also just assume that it "sucks" to do away with it? Where's the evidence that they are effective criteria?
If we're demanding proof that they are not effective, then it's fair to question how we established they are effective in the first place. Else, it's really just a default assumption that represents a positive assertion (i.e. an unsubstantiated claim).
OP's point was "This sucks, they're doing away with objective criteria."
Child comment's points was "They are indeed doing away with objective criteria. These criteria are not valuable though "
The only claim made there was the child comment's claim that these (admittedly objective) criteria are not valuable. That claim was not backed up.