Now we’re talking the whole class, not legacies. Oxbridge, like many US publics, isn’t trying to build the same sort of broad community. Even UCB and UCLA are holistic, when wading through the tidal wave of top academic applicants. Holistic schools with fierce competition can cherry pick among them.
The attributes top holistics want, beyond stats/rigor standards, aren’t just a vegetable soup of extras, two of these, ten of those. You don’t get points for just being different, she’s into Lithuanian folk dance, he does standup comedy.
It’s more a type. Top performers who can see past their career interests, a few hs club opps, racking up hours just showing up for any old service, a couple of leader titles, etc. Top holistics can ask for the perspective, vision and energy to choose well and follow through, the right balances. The thinking.
Even assuming that the “merit” definition should be based on stats alone is self-defeating. It’s not the broader thinking, reaching, they ask for.
In general, not always, a smart legacy kid has an understanding. Their parents were the type. That’s more than wealth, power, expensive ECs or SAT tutoring.
Could they do without legacy indicators? Sure. But CC assumes this status is a huge, heavy adcom finger on the scale, that getting legacies is so important that they shovel in under qualified, boring kids. Not.