To me this seems like two decisions combined. The idea of making sure that "letters of continued interest, extra recommendations, expectation of campus visits,

To me this seems like two decisions combined. The idea of making sure that "letters of continued interest, extra recommendations, expectation of campus visits, lobbying efforts," do not play a role in campus decisions (notably, the statement offered no response to recent issues with donor preference at other "top" schools) seems like a common-sense focus on actually relevant factors and an attempt to reduce bias that will no doubt favor more diverse (and more ethical) candidates. But how does that in any way go along with shunning "supplementary submission of materials, including resumes, research abstracts, writing samples, multimedia demonstrations of talents, and maker portfolios." How is work (most of which, like a writing sample or resume, requires no resources or affluence to create) less equal than academic records which are literally determined by what neighborhood one lives in? Essays aren't bad in theory, but it's only a matter of time before entire books are written by "admissions counselors" on exactly what influential people to name drop and what "shared values" with the school to highlight. Beyond a basic capability (prerequisites) and a lack of contrary evidence (ex. failing classes repeatedly), what could possibly be a better discriminator of student success then the interest they demonstrate through actual self-driven initiative?