I think you're overstating what it takes to get through elite colleges and perhaps misunderstanding what it takes to get in them. There are many strategies to g

I think you're overstating what it takes to get through elite colleges and perhaps misunderstanding what it takes to get in them. There are many strategies to get through those sort of institutions. Ideally the experience at an elite college is an exercise in improving your analytic and communication skills and you thus use those skills in papers, exams and labs to both grow and show your skills. I imagine that's what you have in mind. For other people it is closer to rote memorization and the challenge is recognizing the problem and remembering the solution. Elite colleges don't weed these type of people out with their admission process or their evaluations. And particularly on the coursework side students looking to game the system tend to find courses and professors that are most suited to their goals. Some of these courses are even offered by "good" professors who would rather focus on genuinely engaged students and give the others good enough grades. I've even seen professors that are harsher to genuinely engaged students because they "expect more" from them. The academic system is flawed. And if you think about it from the perspective of an admission dean there aren't any incentives to get it right. For all the complaining we do about types of technical interviews, think about admitting students to a college. You are pretty much only assessed on the superficial statistics of the classes you admit. A company can immediately reap the benefits of a talented employee that flies under the recruiting radar due to not fitting a traditional profile. Most talented high school students need at least a decade before they make meaningful impacts on the world. By then a dean of admission has moved on to a new job.