<p>I would think that for the higher-end schools, one could not measure success for quite a few years and that there are several competing objectives. I suspect that such schools would like to admit students who go on to play prominent roles in business, government and non-profit sectors and, depending upon the school, in the fine and performing arts. They would also like to admit a class whose contributions enhance the school’s endowment. This involves both picking people who will be economic winners and people whose families are already economic winners. Other goals may be measurable much sooner. For example, one might say success includes picking athletes whose academic performance and capabilities are not that much different from the median student while producing decent athletic results. Given the commitment to broaden the student body, success probably includes selecting non-traditional students (minorities and others) who have comparable graduation rates and comparable academic performance to the more traditional admits.</p>
<p>At a lesser school, producing higher graduation rates and people who play prominent roles in the region in which the school is located might be meaningful goals. Admitting a class whose subsequent contributions will help support the school economically will also be important.</p>
<p>Since there are many goals and the schools likely do not have an articulated way of making tradeoffs among the goals, I think it will be hard to judge whether the admissions committees have succeeded.</p>