[GlenTheMachine]

I went to a small rural high school in the 1980s. Taught myself to code, started a business writing software, entered and won the regional science fair and placed second in the CS division of the International Science and Engineering Fair in 1987. Won a prestigious NASA internship, got glowing letters of recommendation from my NASA mentors. Took every AP class available to me (all both of them). Graduated third in my class.

Also played on the varsity basketball team, was an Eagle Scout, and served in my church.

Oh, and scored 1460 on the SAT and 34 on the ACT.

And I got turned down flat by MIT and waitlisted by Yale. Actually, MIT turned me down twice, once for undergrad and again for grad school.

I also ended up at the University of Maryland, and had the time of my life there. And I've had a wildly successful career, which occasionally means I fund MIT professors.

It's a crap shoot. I'd love to know what happened when the MIT admissions board looked at my resume, because as a rational exercise I don't get that decision.

[jaybrendansmith]

It's like a good fit for a job. If the school is not looking for many CompSci that year, they will pass. But if you are a history buff and the history department needs another declared major, you're all set. And your High School unfortunately really mattered then, and it matters even more now, especially with SAT scores disfavored. Also if you live in Mass vs Texas, because they likely have quotas for state residents, international, etc. And they pull first from magnate high schools and private schools, up to a third of their acceptances so I've heard. Currently it is smart to apply to more schools if your parents can afford it, as it increases the chance of a 'lucky strike'. And up at that level, much of it is luck.

[Retric]

Prestigious schools are ranked in part based on how selective they are which incentivizes rejecting people rather than having some standard and growing to accommodate everyone who meets it. This incentivizes them to make admissions seem somewhat random so people that are unlikely to make the cut also apply. Even less selective schools want to reject some applicants simply to maintain a consistent number of students year to year.

Which isn’t to say things are random internally, just that they don’t want most people to be able to know if they would get rejected.

[ncruces]

Above a certain threshold, and if you can't raise admissions, a random selection process is perfectly fair.

It's certainly fairer, IMO, than having a perfectly objective ranking system that mirrors biases in society, and then using affirmative action to counteract those biases.

[Retric]

Fair isn’t necessarily the most important metric for schools. If your parent is a billionaire it’s perfectly rational for them to prefer you over somewhat more qualified applicants.

[red-iron-pine]

based on what, their willingness and ability to donate?

"the university could use a new international airport..."

[Retric]

Donations are appreciated, but so are connections.

Mixing the extremes of intellect, social connections, and wealth offers benefits to each group. It’s an old formula and arguably a larger factor of what makes an elite school than its faculty.

[namrog84]

I've always wondered if they ever turn down people because the people applying appear that they will become intelligent and successful without said college? So why not accept someone who is doing great but not quite living up to their potential?