If the system is so poorly evaluating people that they have to train an irrelevant set of skills to succeed in it, what does that say about the system?
You could argue it's stupid and colleges should only look at personal essays and GPAs and extracurriculars. But then there's problems with that too (lack of standardization for one).
You could argue that high schools shouldn't teach trig or calc because they're largely irrelevant to most tasks in most fields and "what does that say about the system". But actually they do come into play once and awhile and lay a conceptual foundation, so they're still sort of useful to learn. And thus they form a good common foundation to test aptitude inside an hour or so, or at least no one's thought of a better one.