Engendering Mediocrity at Berkeley U. Via "Holistic" Mumbo-Jumbo

Any one else think this is a terrible way to evaluate the worthiness of a university applicant?

A HIGHLY qualified student, with a 3.95 unweighted grade point average and 2300 on the SAT, was not among the top-ranked engineering applicants to the University of California, Berkeley. He had perfect 800s on his subject tests in math and chemistry, a score of 5 on five Advanced Placement exams, musical talent and, in one of two personal statements, had written a loving tribute to his parents, who had emigrated from India.        

Why was he not top-ranked by the “world’s premier public university,” as Berkeley calls itself? Perhaps others had perfect grades and scores? They did indeed. Were they ranked higher? Not necessarily. What kind of student was ranked higher? Every case is different. 

The reason our budding engineer was a 2 on a 1-to-5 scale (1 being highest) has to do with Berkeley’s holistic, or comprehensive, review, an admissions policy adopted by most selective colleges and universities. In holistic review, institutions look beyond grades and scores to determine academic potential, drive and leadership abilities. Apparently, our Indian-American student needed more extracurricular activities and engineering awards to be ranked a 1...

Yeah, too bad he wasn't, say, an Occupy protester who belonged to Greenpeace and PETA: in that case, he'd have been a shoe-in.

Clearly, Berkeley's loss will be some other university's—and society at large's—gain.

Update: The exclusion of worthy applicants who are mathematically and musically gifted because they don't conform to some "holistic" notion of well-roundedness: nerdophobia. The rejectee here could well have grounds for a "human rights" complaint, no?

Update: Holistically speaking, only one of this quartet—the one in pink—would have been welcomed at Berkeley.