While the overall rating is not absolute, there should be a clear correlation between the admission decision and the rating. If there is not such a correlation, the ratings “shorthand” has little meaning. This type of correlation occurred in the Harvard lawsuit analysis as summarized below, just as it does for the UCs. If an applicant gets the referenced low “3 or 4” overall rating, he/she is extremely unlikely to be admitted, without strong hooks.
Harvard Admit Rate by Overall Rating: White Unhooked Applicants
1 Overall Rating: 100% Admit Rate
2 Overall Rating: 66% Admit Rate
3+ Overall Rating: 8.9% Admit Rate
3 Overall Rating: 1.9% Admit Rate
3- or 4: Overall Rating: <0.02% Admit Rate
Harvard Admit Rate by Overall Rating: White LDC Hooked Applicants
1 Overall Rating: 100% Admit Rate
2 Overall Rating: ~90% Admit Rate
3+ or 3 Overall Rating: ~21% Admit Rate
3- or 4 Overall Rating: ~2% Admit Rate
The Harvard admit rates by overall rating also suggests that one could find a similar pattern for children of faculty/staff/donor preference at Harvard, as was described in the UC report. I expect this would include a very small number of donor admits who received a low less than 3 rating. Among applicants with the low less than 3 rating, the Harvard admit rate appears ~100x higher for LDC hooked kids than unhooked kids. This is far less problematic for Harvard than UC since Harvard has no rule I am aware that prevents them from favoring children of faculty/staff/donors, like the UC system does.