Exam results alone, or interviews and essays too: which admissions are fairer?

Write my answer and get scored

Universities disagree about what fairness in admissions means: identical treatment through exam scores alone, or fuller judgment through interviews, essays and activities. Having weighed both, I believe exam-centred admission is the fairer system, provided it is softened at the edges. The case for holistic review sounds humane. People are more than a number; an interview can find brilliance that a bad exam day concealed. But in practice every additional criterion is a door for advantage to walk through. Polished essays can be coached or purchased, interview confidence correlates with private schooling, and impressive activities require money and leisure. Historically, holistic admissions were even introduced at some famous universities precisely to exclude unwanted groups politely. Exams are narrow, and that narrowness is their virtue. A blind score cannot see surname, accent or connections. For the poor student, the exam is the one gate that money cannot hold shut, which is why systems from China's gaokao to Germany's Abitur, whatever their flaws, enjoy deep public trust. The honest weaknesses of exams, chiefly single-day luck, are fixable within the exam model itself: multiple sittings, best-of attempts and contextual adjustment for school background preserve blindness while adding mercy. In conclusion, both systems misjudge individuals, but they fail differently: exams fail randomly, while holistic review fails systematically in favour of the privileged. Fairness is better served by the failure that does not choose its victims.