But Harvard had such a system until a hundred years ago it adopted the holistic approach now practiced by many selective colleges.
“Such a selection, Lowell added, “can be carried out only in case the numbers are limited. If there is no limit, it is impossible to reject a candidate who passes the admissions examinations without proof of defective character.””
Pure meritocracy is a myth. I was that parent who paid close to a thousand dollars so my kid could improve his test score. Many students do not have that option.
He gained over a hundred points over a three month span. His biggest takeaway was that he didn’t learn any math or reading he didn’t know before, he learned better test strategies.
“Defective character” is the message many outstanding high-schoolers are still receiving when they open their proverbial envelopes.
Wouldn’t it be better (forgetting for a minute what the institutions themselves might want) to have a system where the envelope said instead “sorry, your test scores weren’t high enough for Harvard, but good luck at Cornell”? 
I have such a student. He is innately intelligent and does well on tests when he decides to turn it on. Much of the time, he decides not to turn it on. I would struggle to write a recommendation if he asked because when things are harder than he anticipated, he blames the teacher or says it’s a bad test. I don’t think he will do well in college, but I hope he proves me wrong.
Saying 60%-70% of applicants are qualified based on stats does not mean 60%-70% of the applicants are admissible.
I’m teaching Gatsby right now, so my mind is not on going back to the 1920’s in terms of equality and meritocracy 
Something can start for one reason and continue for different reasons. Not at all implying that holistic means completely fair or there aren’t hidden agendas at play, but I don’t think you make the case that test score admissions are based purely on merit.
Even if the end result is that 40% don’t end up graduating?
That is understood yes. It’s a stat often used to indicate the level of competition and that usage seems misguided
And are colleges willing to provide some guidance as to what “admissible” looks like vs “qualified”? The answer I’m guessing will be that this is too complicated, but that is why I understand why many applicants apply very broadly.
And I think to clarify our example, it’s not so much “do not apply to Middlebury” as it is “do not expect to get in to Middlebury”.
That imaginary foreign language student should apply to some reach FL schools, but even more match and safety FL schools.
That is incorrect.
Up until 1924 Harvard admissions were similar to many moderately selective and unselective public flagships are today. You are granted admissions to the university as long as the applicant has adequate grades, passes an admissions test, and has the money to attend they could enroll.
From the Crimson article:
“In 1924, for the first time in Harvard’s history, the University limited the number of students it would accept. Up until this point, so long as a student cleared Harvard’s academic requirements and had the money to attend, they were allowed to enroll.”
That is a societal problem placed upon the unfortunate student by peer and cultural pressure. It is not at all a problem promulgated by the current admissions process.
Not at all because we would be back to a narrow and inadequate definition of excellence based on a test which could not be nearly as accurate as people imply given a single application of the test. It would be no better than the current system and possibly worse for those who fell “just short” of the cut line.
And, the implication that Cornell is somehow lesser than Harvard highlights the current situation perfectly.
Yet Northeastern and Boston University are extremely popular and neither one is big on sports. In fact, neither one has a football team.
That is not how open admissions is defined, from what I understand.
“Open admissions, or open enrollment, is a type of unselective and noncompetitive college admissions process in the United States in which the only criterion for entrance is a high school diploma or a certificate of attendance or General Educational Development certificate.”
My son is at Northeastern. He has never cared about sports, but is now an enthusiastic member of the Doghouse and is experiencing great anxiety over the Beanpot 
I do get your point. It’s not every school, but I do think it’s enough to be significant. Going to school in Boston is its own kind of special.
Corrected but you knew what was being said.
If I might be allowed to digress just a tad…
What is your opinion of top STEM magnet schools (such as Thomas Jefferson), that are (or until recently were) selecting their students by exam?
I think the answer to this mirror question is not entirely divorced from the topic of this thread.
If a test-based close rejection at (let’s say) Harvard came with a near-guaranteed admission at (let’s say) Cornell (with a similar effect continuing all the way down), this web site would likely not have existed.
But that would also require, among other things, a closer look at athletes and legacies, and nobody wants that.
I’ve got an opinion on TJ. So I graduated from a similar program 30 years ago in a different state. We went to the TJ orientation, met some alumni, and I did some research on the alumni. If the program produced scientific geniuses that further advanced humanity, that would be great. But I wasn’t able to find a notable alumni anywhere.
I personally don’t like how they house all these kids they’ve identified to be future STEM kids and devote resources there into a single school. My area is trying to start a similar program, but my D told me a lot of those kids from her school in the program couldn’t get in to the top state college because their classes were so hard, and their GPAs were too low.
What I like about the program at the school I attended was that it was integrated into school with other kids too, although even our program could be subject to criticism. But at least our program did generate some notable alumni.
…say, is there a Canadian version of College Confidential? And is it also called “confidential”? 
Some of their alumni of various degrees of notability (but all with a personal wiki page) are listed here:
The program my kids attended uses a similar setup (a small cohort within a larger public school). Their top kids seem to do alright with admissions.
But the question is, is it a good idea to try to group kids by academic ability and preparation, so they continue to be challenged in classes accordingly, or is that not the main goal of their classroom time? If not, what is?
Your belief is incorrect. My children both attended US universities which were their top choices. They understood how to play the game, and got the expected results. They don’t like the system, but managed it just fine.
They are, however, quite proud of the foreign universities to which they were admitted based on intellectual merit alone.
