> So schools have subjective criteria that disproportionately impacts one group of students, but it’s fine because that’s the rules and they are following it?

I don’t think that the criteria are quite as subjective as you think. Anything on the margin, especially if it will make or break an application, will be discussed and evaluated at a reasonable level.

Most people are getting downgraded because of complete omission of one or more evaluated areas.

For the past few decades, elite schools have been very clear that they are looking for more than good grades (which themselves can be highly subjective) and good SATs in applicants. As mentioned in the article I linked in my first reply, Harvard actually lays out their exact rubric.

If someone, Asian or not, decides not to participate in sports and doesn’t really have a good reason why not (e.g., had to work after school), they shouldn’t be surprised by their low rating in this area, and they better be highly rated (as in, a 1) in one or more other areas to compensate.

The schools don’t maintain these criteria in order to exclude a certain race of people. They maintain these criteria because they think it’s good for the school long term.

As a simple example, so many of the people who disparage athletics as a component of admissions have no idea how important being a varsity athlete can be after graduating — I call it a totally-not-club club because it has such an invisible but significant influence.

Lastly, I will add that it is almost impossible to have an evaluation system that yields an equal outcome for all races that isn’t a pure lottery. I know the lottery idea is popular on HN, but I think that this is overly dismissive of what makes the strong elite school applicants strong both when they apply and after they graduate. Imho, other than 10% or so of each entering class, it’s not that they are brainiacs — it’s that they are smart enough and can get interesting shit done.