You seem to be taking issue with the fact that the piece could be interpreted as implying 97% of MS students didn’t want to go to college. Obviously, if that was his point, he was omitting the most important detail.
His point was that if you bias the data source, you get results that you shouldn’t project onto the general population. The specific explanation of the 97% disinterest in the SAT is well and truly irrelevant.
My issue was more the opposite. If the author is saying, hey, only 3% of kids take the SAT which creates selection bias, most people will immediately wonder why the low percentage. The ACT info adds support and explanation to his own argument, so it should have been included.
His point was that if you bias the data source, you get results that you shouldn’t project onto the general population. The specific explanation of the 97% disinterest in the SAT is well and truly irrelevant.