Thank you for your considered opinion, Beagle. Now that that you've enlightened us all perhaps you could deign to explain your reasoning to support your emotive outburst.
1:60 works. It works well, it's simple & it's flexible. Other methods also work. All methods have some disadvantages although I think on balance the 1:60 has fewest.
As far as I can see your favoured method offers no additional benefit.
Indeed, it locks you into a single correction factor. Bad luck if you wish to achieve track elsewhere eg a particularly recognisable point in relatively featureless terrain (this can also be a deficit for proportional nav & double the TE corrections). It also means you have to memorise a range of apparently arbitrary SCAs for a variety of a/c. How's that different to memorising the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 (and '+ a half'). I would argue that your method, whilst useful at times, lacks flexibility
and is no simpler particularly if you fly range of a/c. Granted, if you fly a single type then it can be a 'good thing'.
I would also wonder at the accuracy of SCA when there's a large difference between TAS & GS - a common occurance in light a/c.