The Admissions Process Is Not a Meritocracy — And Why That Matters
How class-building, constraints, and randomness shape outcomes—and how applicants should think about success
One of the most damaging myths in college admissions is the belief that the process is a pure meritocracy.
Applicants are told—implicitly and explicitly—that if they work hard enough, achieve enough, and present themselves well enough, admission to a top institution will follow. When outcomes do not align with this belief, students often internalize rejection as personal failure, misdiagnose their applications, or chase endless optimization.
Admissions committees do not operate within a meritocratic framework alone. They operate within a class-construction framework, shaped by constraints that have little to do with individual excellence.
Understanding this reality does not make the process cynical. It makes it accurate—and allows applicants to engage the process with clarity rather than self-blame.
Merit Matters — But It Is Only the Entry Ticket
At institutions like Harvard University or Stanford University, thousands of applicants each year are academically and personally qualified to succeed.
Merit determines:
Whether an application is taken seriously
Whether the applicant is viable for admission
Whether concerns are fatal or contextual
Merit does not determine:
Whether there is space in the class
Whether the applicant’s profile aligns with unmet needs
Whether timing and composition work in the applicant’s favor
Once a threshold is crossed, outcomes are driven by comparative fit, not absolute quality.
Class-Building Changes the Question Entirely
Admissions committees are not assembling a ranking. They are assembling a class.
This means they must balance:
Academic interests
Geographic distribution
Institutional priorities
Program enrollment targets
Financial aid constraints
Yield management
At Yale University or Princeton University, an exceptional applicant may be denied not because they are weak, but because the committee has already admitted enough students with similar academic trajectories, backgrounds, or goals.
This is not a reflection of merit. It is a reflection of composition.
Why “More Qualified” Is the Wrong Lens
Applicants often ask why someone “less qualified” was admitted.
This question misunderstands how decisions are made.
Admissions committees do not compare applicants in isolation. They compare applicants within a specific context:
Who else has already been admitted
What gaps remain
What risks need to be mitigated
At University of Chicago, an applicant with extraordinary intellectual depth may be denied if the class already contains a surplus of similar thinkers. At Georgetown University, a strong applicant may be passed over if their engagement profile does not align with mission priorities that year.
Admissions is not additive. It is curatorial.
The Role of Scarcity and Timing
Scarcity shapes outcomes more than applicants realize.
Highly selective institutions may have:
Fewer than 1,700 seats
Tens of thousands of viable applicants
Fixed constraints on housing, faculty, and funding
Within this system, timing matters:
Early rounds may prioritize certain profiles
Later rounds may respond to gaps created by yield uncertainty
Waitlist movement reflects late-stage class calibration
Two equally strong applicants applying in different cycles—or even different rounds—can receive different outcomes.
Randomness Is Real (and Not Personal)
Once merit thresholds are met and fit is plausible, randomness enters the process.
This does not mean decisions are arbitrary. It means that:
Marginal differences are amplified
Subjective human judgment plays a role
Small details tip decisions
Admissions officers themselves acknowledge that many final decisions come down to fine distinctions that are not predictive of future success.
This reality is uncomfortable—but ignoring it leads to false conclusions.
Why This Truth Is Often Hidden
The myth of meritocracy persists because it is emotionally easier and institutionally convenient.
It reassures applicants that:
Effort guarantees outcome
Failure implies correctable deficiency
The system is fully controllable
Admissions committees rarely emphasize class-building constraints publicly because doing so invites criticism and misunderstanding. But internally, these constraints dominate decision-making.
The Harm of Believing in a Pure Meritocracy
When applicants believe the process is purely merit-based, rejection often leads to:
Unwarranted self-doubt
Over-optimization and burnout
Misguided reapplication strategies
Cynicism or resentment
Strong applicants frequently “fix” the wrong things because they misdiagnose why they were denied.
A Healthier, More Accurate Mental Model
A more accurate way to think about admissions is this:
Merit gets you considered
Fit gets you debated
Context determines the outcome
This model allows applicants to:
Prepare strong, coherent applications
Make strategic school lists
Respond to outcomes with clarity
Preserve confidence and perspective
It also reframes success: not as admission to a single institution, but as placement into an environment where the applicant can thrive.
What Applicants Can Control — And What They Cannot
Applicants can control:
Academic preparation
Depth of engagement
Quality of reflection
Institutional understanding
Professionalism throughout the process
Applicants cannot control:
Who else applies
Institutional priorities
Yield fluctuations
Committee composition
Macro-level constraints
Wisdom lies in distinguishing between the two.
Why This Perspective Actually Strengthens Applications
Applicants who understand the non-meritocratic nature of admissions tend to:
Write more honest essays
Avoid performative posturing
Choose better-aligned schools
Respond to outcomes maturely
Ironically, releasing the illusion of total control often results in stronger applications.
Closing Perspective
At Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, Chicago, and Georgetown, admissions decisions are not moral judgments and not rankings of human worth.
They are outcomes of a constrained, comparative, human process designed to build a class—not to validate individuals.
Applicants who understand this truth do not disengage. They engage more intelligently, with perspective, resilience, and clarity.
And that understanding—more than any single acceptance—may be the most valuable outcome of the process itself.
