What I'm going for is more the idea that if you consider the best alternative I can think of to the "holistic" approach, you get selecting applicants purely based on entrance exam scores. In such a world you'd be punishing a kid who plays with Arduino out of interest. Any energy devoted towards something other than test prep is energy wasted.
In the American system, as I'm coming to see it, the kid who plays with Arduino is punished less. The test won't take you all the way anyways, and you even get a little "refund" on attention sunk into some types of activity which qualify as extracurricular.
For course selection too. You'll have students picking out classes because they are known to be easy and not because they are curious about it. Because they have to keep their GPA at a certain level.
What a truly stunning coincidence indeed.
There's a percentage of admitted students at which it's interesting to admit based on donations. Especially if one large donation can make need-blind admission possible for N students. But do it too much and you'll become a school that's known as "pay to win".
> (our "preparatory classes" system also has similar high competitiveness/high pressure characteristics, to prepare for a few deciding exams
There's also a third hidden option. The Polytechnique in Montreal is notorious for this: admit too much, collect tuition and then have students transfer out when they can't handle the workload.
Having lived in the US for a decade now, one of the biggest culture gap I keep and that probably won't ever go away is how it's somewhat accepted here that "letting rich kids cheat/buy their way into Ivy League is not that bad, and look it pays for a new cafeteria".