Isn’t it inarguable that 100’s of qualified applicants are declined by the top schools? The kids that get in all have something the schools are looking for to build what they want in a class. It may be race, geography, athletic prowess, artistic prowess, musical talent, geographic location, or a special interest or quality, or a combination of the above, or any number of other qualities, but these schools certainly don’t have to lower their basic academic standards to build that class. The implicit suggestion in some of these posts that they do is ridiculous. It is just as ridiculous as the overt claims that these schools are blind to these special qualities. The kids that are accepted get in for a number of reasons, some we know and some we don’t. Just as the ones who aren’t accepted don’t get in for a number of reasons which rarely involve lack of academic ability.
What would these schools look like if it was a pure meritocracy? What do you define as merit? Academic achievement without regard for any other quality? If a school only accepted the brightest applicants, however you define that, would it still be a desirable school to attend? Not for me or my child.
The schools you are applying to are desirable to you because of what they are, not because of what you wish or think they should be.