This is the same problem as the housing crisis.

What happens when you have limited resources (housing, dorms, teachers) and a group of people who are superior in some way end up wanting to use all your resources (buy all housing, be smartest and get admitted everywhere)?

With money, we end up with capitalism doofus blindness and say "you got money, you EARNED that money, clearly, so do whatever you want" even though in modern "foreigners buying real property" practices, it's corrupt/graft money breaking SF/London/NYC/LA/Seattle/Vancouver housing markets in a worldwide government sanctioned oligarch money laundering scheme.

With intelligence/capability, it's trickier. The popular belief is every human brain starts as a blank slate with unlimited capability. By that logic, if you don't get accepted somewhere, it's your own damn fault. But, that's so obviously wrong. I know plenty of people who are physically smarter than me. In certain problem-solving capacities, they think faster, better, and in more immediately creative ways than I do (what I lack in immediate ability I make up for in long-term effort). And so do their siblings and their parents and their grandparents going back many many years. But, just because I'm lesser, should I be thrown to the gutter while _only_ high quality education goes to the "truly smart" people?

Then that's where race rears its ugly head. If you only select people with a certain strand of hereditary smarts, you end up with a campus with a majority of people from background X where X feel "at home" there and welcome, but then your minorities C, D, E, F, G, H feel, well, minority. A popular solution to the "too many high achieving people from the same background" bugaboo is to try and make the minorities less minority by boosting their numbers though allowing sub-perfect acceptance (not sub-par, just sub-not-the-absolute-best-ever). But, you have a fixed resource to allocate (class sizes, dorm rooms), so that kicks out some of the (glut) of perfect achievers you would have otherwise accepted.

Then it comes down to politics. Conservative = "me me me, i'm perfect me me me, kill the lessers." Liberal = "we're all in the together, so maybe you should step aside from this opportunity to let others advance too."

You end up with a spectrum from top-down solutions ("no more than 20% of people from X background") to a bottom-up solutions ("only compare people of Y background from other Y background, then start acceptance from non-majority application piles first"). Neither is "fair" to the other, but if you don't pick a society-optimal fairness system (which is inherently unfair to those rejected), you get a completely unfair system of privilege boosting privilege (inherent privilege obtained by upbringing or genetic lottery). (Completely ignoring the other soft acceptance categories of "will this student eventually give us (or will their children eventually give us) lots of money in donations or bring us fame as a legacy.")

There's no actual solution to preventing the over-allocation of fixed resources in the presence of superior consumers; all we're left with is compromises on the spectrum of "superiors only" versus "helping everybody in society."

Thought experiment: if space aliens (superior consumers) landed and offered to sell us antigravity fabric and replicators for $9 trillion USD ('fixed' resources), would we just give them all the money? (Extension: what if they wanted $1 trillion USD worth of bitcoin and you can't even generate that much? Fiat wins again!)