The problem, @observer12, is when you talk about applicants who are “outstanding” or “superstars”, what do you mean? Generally, when you cut through it, people making these kinds of arguments are talking about kids who have the highest stats, and suggesting that they would get the slots in a just world.
But that’s not what these schools want. The tippy-top schools could fill their classes with perfect-stats kids many times over. They’d have a pretty boring, monochromatic student body, though, and the schools’ impact on and penetration into society would shrink, because all the kids with special attributes and achievements beyond stats would be thrown out. That’s a bad outcome for Harvard and its peers.
So then, you might say, let’s give priority to a group of fabulous kids with certain attributes, and cut them some slack on stats. Well, if you go down that road, you’re doing exactly what the universities are doing, just with your individual emphasis.
In the end, for the universities, it’s all about admitting the class that it’s in their best interests to admit. And most of those admits aren’t admitted because their primary attribute is being really, really smart, as evidenced by grades and scores (although many are).