When you say “It seems that you benefited from holistic admission” to the student, implying that this holistic approach disadvantaged the “4.0 URM and otherwise that were rejected,” I became surprised.
I usually don’t comment, but I was shocked when I read your comment. It seems really petty of you to tell someone who does not agree with you that they took someone’s else’s spot and that they benefited from an “unfair system,” pointing to “the 4.0 URM’s that were rejected.” I have no idea where you got “these 4.0 URM’s” that were rejected because of the student above. Maybe “these 4.0 URMs” were rejected because of test scores, extracurriculars, essays, etc.
If a 4.0 URM is rejected, it’s not because of another student that “took their spot.” The student above did not “benefit from the system,” as they aren’t even URM, they are ORM. They benefited from their own hard work against a system that doesn’t benefit them, and THEY AREN’T EVEN COMPLAINING about the system as you are. And if a URM is rejected, it is their own qualifications, as URMs do face an advantage, not matter how significant the advantage may be. I read these threads for insight and for absorbing respectful debate. To personally attack another student’s qualifications is beyond the scope of respectful debate. You should at least try to debate with stats and rationale, which the student above did.