I've always enjoyed perusing and studying the way university admissions work. I look at the statistics and articles written about it, and I talk to high school students about it. One interesting thing I noticed was about the admission to Harvard--specifically, I now theorize that it is mainly a thing about good luck and connection when a student applies to Harvard and got in.

The most important contribution to this theory is the simple fact that there are not enough seats for all the students who meet all the qualifications. On average, Harvard admits 11% of all its applicants every year. Talking to high school students, one finds that the only students who dared to apply at all have all scored nearly perfect on their SATs, all are talented in a million things, all are top of their class, all are presidents of multiple clubs, all are involved in community works, and all are superbly unique in more than one way. In short, Harvard has no real objective standard on which to decide, for about 75% of all its applicants, who is a superior or a more fitting candidate. One story I read was about a pair of brothers, the older one was accepted by Harvard, and the younger one, following his brother's footstep, has identical or superior qualifications and headed similar clubs, and was turned down. He was furious and asked why, to which Harvard replies: "We've already got someone just like you--your brother, so in order to enhance our variety, we need someone different".

So what's the point of this realization? For now, I can think of several: 1) It is a misconception that a Harvard student is necessarily smarter or more talented than those who failed to get in. (which makes it very annoying when a Harvard student acts boastful) 2) For those who wish to get in and have no connection, it is, fairly speaking, pretty much a gamble. Too bad. 3) But hey, when you couldn't get in, you don't need to feel so bad. Just don't go to Vegas within the next month or so.

What's your opinion on this?

Nothing is fair anymore, and Harvard is no exception. Nowadays in almost all cases, it's who you know, and not what you know. About the brothers, that seems like Harvard is just trying to make a statement instead of doing what's right.

status

I guess the main question is : are people who graduated from Harvard as good as they are supposed to be ?
From the article, all I undestand is that all candidates to Harvard are very good. Sure, at this level there is a part of random and arbitrary in the selection, but it is true for any selection. Having been in the jury of my former school, I have to admit that I supported some candidate on a partly irrational basis, but that does not mean I was cheating or biased. And the explanation of the university about the two brothers makes sense; even if it can seem unfair.