The issue is this: A significant number of chess players, perhaps even a majority, feel that a certain level of competence at chess should be required to get a chess rating.
Or, they feel that very weak players, for example those rated below 800, are so weak that their results against each other are essentially random and no effort should be made to rate them.
Here is my reply:
Experts and masters seem to find it ridiculous that the rating system tries to distinguish between players rated 200 and players rated 300.
However, serious scholastic organizers find these rating useful. Scholastic chess is not about churning out grandmasters. It is about teaching kids the importance of learning and study. When you can say, "Congratulations, Timmy, you have learned your lessons well and now you are a 300 player", that is important to a child.
If we change the rating system the way they want it, USCF ratings will not be available for most scholastic players and scholastic organizers will leave the USCF and take their 30,000 members with them.
Sam Sloan