[M T]

Because we'd be better off with more Elizabeth Holmes's and fewer Meghan McClures?

Or more Peter Thiel's than Brock Turner's.
Cherry picking can go both ways.

Obviously other potential students are turned away so athletes can be admitted.  Whether there is a benefit to society (and Stanford) for that prioritization is unclear to me, but it is something that can be considered.   If Stanford values only the financial benefit to the university of its students (both short term income (or loss) from tuition & sports or long term donations from alumni), then it can be measured or at least estimated.

[M T]

Because we'd be better off with more Elizabeth Holmes's and fewer Meghan McClures?

Or more Peter Thiel's than Brock Turner's.
Cherry picking can go both ways.

Obviously other potential students are turned away so athletes can be admitted.  Whether there is a benefit to society (and Stanford) for that prioritization is unclear to me, but it is something that can be considered.   If Stanford values only the financial benefit to the university of its students (both short term income (or loss) from tuition & sports or long term donations from alumni), then it can be measured or at least estimated.