<p>
</p>
<p>“Qualified” is probably a bad term. I know what you’re saying, and what you’re saying is said many times and is accepted as conventional wisdom. It’s true that Harvard rejects a number of talented students. Harvard rejects a number of students who would succeed at Harvard, and a number of students who would succeed at Harvard to a greater extent than I ever will. But everyone who is accepted to Harvard is by definition more qualified for admission. There is something that made Harvard accept them, and something that made them not accept the other kid.</p>
<p>This isn’t true if Harvard admissions are rolling, which they’re not. This also isn’t true if Harvard is just trying to “build a class,” as many have said. Nothing makes the oboe player more qualified if Harvard is just trying to make sure it has an oboe player. But I really doubt it works like that. Harvard’s early stage admissions are regional, so the Harvard admissions officers in New England doesn’t know how many oboe players the officers in the Midwest are admitting. Even if they did, someone has to decide which oboe player wins and that deciding factor makes them more qualified.</p>
<p>Maybe “qualified” should read “qualified for Harvard,” because what makes a Harvard admit more qualified may not make him or her more qualified at another school. But the fact that she or he was accepted means there was some factor that put them over the edge. To make an argument that Eric was “taking up a legitimate person’s spot” means that there was a spot for the legitimate person at all. Eric got it and person X didn’t because Eric was more qualified.</p>