So we are collectively engaged in a college admission "arms race" that is almost a complete social waste, for once a set of "good enough students" or "good enough schools" has been identified, it probably doesn't matter very much which one you choose; or if it does matter, there is no way to know in advance what the right choice is. Hair-splitting to distinguish among excellent students (or schools) is a waste of time and effort; the degree of precision required exceeds the inherent reliability of the data.
Schwartz argues that admissions committees should screen applications to decide which students are "good enough" to be admitted. Then, instead of spending countless hours in an ultimately futile effort to select the "very best" of these good enough students, committees should narrow the pool by randomly selecting the "winning" final group to be offered admission.
This inspired idea would save everyone, especially students, a lot of grief. And, as Schwartz speculates, if "talented and hard working people are forced to confront the element of chance in life's outcomes when they (or their kids) fail to get into the 'best' college, they may be more inclined to acknowledge the role of luck in shaping the lives of the people around them"—which may, in turn, "make them a good deal more empathic toward others, and a good deal more committed to creating more room, for themselves and others, at the top."
