If the process were bad enough that it wasn't producing good results (targeted enrollment numbers, more donations, larger endowments), universities would have a

If the process were bad enough that it wasn't producing good results (targeted enrollment numbers, more donations, larger endowments), universities would have an incentive to deviate from the cutoff system. As you describe, the system works the way that it does now. It's not a perfect system, and people who shoot to high or too low get screwed. That's life - perfect info, perfect matching, etc. don't exist, especially for a relationship as complex as the student-college one. There's no clear-cut signal for which students will be "the best" for colleges and vice versa, which colleges will benefit the students the most. We can only try to reduce the number of students who get screwed over by adding more people to admissions departments, college counselors, reducing application fees, increasing awareness etc. Adding more info to the student/college set is expensive. On the college side: Top college endowments are flourishing and there is no incentive to innovate at the most prestigious schools. On the student side: parents who can already pay massive amounts to game the system with private school, private tutors, admissions experts etc. It is the job of government to reduce the difference between wealthy and poor students. So an increase in spending on public school education is necessary, especially with regards to college prep. The system is built around the information that schools collect from students: grades and extracurriculars. Unless other types of data are collected and used as signals during the admissions process (having some kind of score for EQ and social ability, for example), then nothing will change. This is a process that happens millions of times per year, hundreds of millions of times if we see hiring as a similar problem. There is no silver bullet.