I’d question why anyone who is not with the marketing team of X school cares what language they use to best represent their statistics. Much like their applicants, I’m sure they want to be viewed in the best light, and in context of social values that the body of people who they want to reach out to appreciate. I’m of the opinion that all colleges and universities should be able to diversify their student body in any way they see fit, based on what brings the most value to their grounds, as long as they don’t exclude anyone based on prohibited forms of discrimination. You may not love their language, but are you truly challenging the truthfulness of it (note: even if you were, it wouldn’t matter, the colleges in the Ivy League are all private-- they don’t owe anyone a self-prescribed standard of denouncing themselves to make their naysayers feel better)?
More importantly, are “…athletes, legacy, donors, east coast majority, private prep schools, wealthy, connected and others like them…” somehow barred from finding the colleges of their dreams too? Are they less worthy of holistic admissions? Are the Ivy League Schools somehow different from the thousands of other schools, in wanting to bring in the class that best represents the values that they’re trying to espouse, and elevates their brand? Athletes bring in dollars, and Ivy League athletes are bright, engaging, and talented-- in other words, they’ve met the admission requirements. All of the Ivies are on the east coast, so it stands to reason that there would be a larger concentration of east coasters. That’s like complaining that an abundance of Texans apply to Rice, or an abundance of Californians apply to Stanford. Private Prep Schools establish mutual relationships with Admissions offices to be feeders (not unlike a lot of other public and private universities and other public and private schools). Wealthy people can pay the full cost of attendance, and their children will likely have had more opportunities to build a stellar resume than far less well-off students. Connected students (presumably you mean a legacy connection) ensure that the hefty endowment continues. And then, there’s everyone else, who has an equally very low chance of admission. Truthfully, unless you’re a pure prestige seeker, looking from the outside in, it’s a win-win for everyone.
If only prestige, or self-entitlement are at issue, there are literally hundreds of other “prestigious” universities that don’t have single-digit admission rates. Being angry at institutions for protecting their brands seems like a waste of good energy.
You said, “Everyone boasting about 42 countries, 52 states, 6.9 races, bottom 20% low income, first generation, generous aid while using limited and identical vocabulary. What’s up with that?” I say, what’s wrong with that? Unless it was really 3 countries, 4 states, 2 races, top 1%, high SEC (only), and 99% legacies that paid full COA, and “generous aid” was a euphemism for $80k/per year in private, high interest loans, there’s no issue with ‘bait and switch’. Nothing to see here, and nothing to be upset about.