Should university admissions be determined solely by examination performance, or should they assess the applicant as a whole?

Harvard's holistic admissions system emerged in the 1920s, in part to reduce the number of Jewish students who had excelled under an examination-based system. "Character" and "fit" became the language through which discrimination could be exercised. That history remains the strongest argument for examinations: anyone with access to the syllabus and sufficient preparation can, in principle, compete on equal terms, and what the paper cannot see cannot be turned against the candidate.Yet examinations are difficult to defend as the sole criterion for admission. A few hours on a single day can determine a student's future, while late bloomers, unconventional thinkers, and those whose abilities are not easily captured by timed tests are overlooked. Nor are examinations immune to inequality. Years of expensive coaching can meaningfully improve performance, sustaining an industry built on converting financial resources into higher scores.Holistic admissions try to capture what exams miss: curiosity, resilience, creativity, leadership, and potential. But they also rely on subjective judgement. Essays, interviews, recommendations, and extracurricular activities are difficult to evaluate consistently, and many of the experiences that make an application stand out, from research internships to international volunteering, can be bought just as coaching for entrance exams can.What is a university for? Is it an institution that identifies those who are already exceptional, or one that cultivates potential?