[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.