That's really not the argument though is it? Saying "so what if someone are left out of X, Y is a comparable alternative" doesn't change the fact that X is bein

That's really not the argument though is it? Saying "so what if someone are left out of X, Y is a comparable alternative" doesn't change the fact that X is being shut out. If you remove these "objective" measures, it starts being reliant on "holistic factors", and feels like this inherently gives an advantage to well off kids whose parents can send them on different summer schools or labs or whatever. Harvard (and the Ivy league) still maintains a reputation and the industry still does care about it (especially in liberal arts / banking etc), so these fields will reduce in accessibility to those who can't develop "holistic skills". The other problem you point to is very real, but that's independent of the issue currently being discussed in this post.