David Wand did yeoman’s work to obtain admissions data from 18 law schools and 14 medical schools. He found that in many cases, over 10% of students admitted had either lower GPA, LSAT or MCAT scores than other applicants who were rejected. Those admitted with lower scores were from designated racial minority or identity groups.

It’s great to see the Ontario government’s Ministry of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security moving to properly define merit. Postsecondary institutions are premised on academic excellence, character development and skill formation to facilitate knowledge production and the pursuit of truth. 

I would argue that their admissions processes must therefore be transparent, and based on a definition of merit that is rooted in objective standards:

Merit must be clearly defined and measurable. Universities should clearly connected to the core competencies and aptitudes required for success in that field. 

Admissions processes must be transparent and auditable

Identity-based preferences should be prohibited

Diversity should be pursued outside of the admissions process through things like academic supports, scholarship and bursaries. 

Merit should be clearly defined in regulation and grounded primarily in objective academic indicators such as GPA, prerequisite performance, and standardized test scores where applicable. Admissions decisions should be overwhelmingly based on these quantifiable measures—on the order of 90–95 percent of total weighting—with only a limited portion (5–10 percent) reserved for qualitative factors such as essays or reference letters, and only where these are directly tied to program-relevant competencies. 

Race, ethnicity, gender identity, or similar characteristics should not be used in admissions decisions, either directly or indirectly, including through separate admissions streams or quota-like systems. 

To prevent circumvention, universities should not be permitted to inflate subjective criteria, introduce identity-linked hardship categories, or embed demographic considerations into qualitative assessments; all criteria must be demonstrably relevant to academic or professional success. This would also go for ‘critical studies’ departments, who might claim that identity is core to their mission. Such fields of study are part of the problem.

Institutions should also be required to publish standardized and comprehensive disclosures, including program-specific admissions criteria, the precise weighting of each factor, scoring rubrics, and aggregate admissions data, reported annually. Any exceptions—for example, in programs requiring specific competencies such as portfolios or auditions—should be narrowly defined, publicly disclosed, and approved through ministerial regulation rather than institutional discretion. 

This is certainly not to say that diversity is not worth pursuing. Universities should be encouraged to pursue diversity through non-discriminatory means such as outreach, preparatory programs, mentorship, scholarships, bursaries, and student supports. 

Finally, these requirements must be backed by meaningful enforcement mechanisms, including funding consequences for non-compliance.

If universities want public trust they need to earn it. They would be best placed to do so by better embodying the ideal of the disinterested pursuit of truth and academic excellence through processes that are fair and transparent.