What does it mean when a school, having rejected a child who applied for admission, explains that he or she just "isn't a good fit" with the school? At times, it is not clear how the decision to prevent a child from enrolling is best described as a lack of fit, particularly if the school's goals and priorities (a) correspond to what most parents are looking for, and (b) cannot easily be distinguished from those of other schools. It is hard to avoid the suspicion that "not a good fit" is often just code for "You're not good enough for us." And if that is true, it is not only the dishonesty of the language that rankles but the implication that the school is looking out for the interests of the child it has rejected. There are two assumptions driving the admissions process. The first is that schools can predict with reasonable accuracy which applicants are most likely to be academically successful. The second assumption underlying traditional admissions is that sifting out all but the most promising children (and then working hard to persuade their parents to enroll) is what schools "should" be doing. In this article, the author points out the connection between the two assumptions and explains why schools try to admit only the "creme de la creme." He argues that switching from one admissions test to another, or appointing someone to oversee diversity issues, or adding "emotional intelligence" or "character" to the list of admissions criteria are not responses that go to the root of the problem. The response that makes the most sense is simply to stop being selective, which means choosing the student body randomly from those who apply. It is clean; it is fair; it is socially responsible; it can be used at any level, from preschool to graduate school; it gives a chance to show just how amazing a school really is;... and it will be rejected as hopelessly idealistic by the very schools that claim to be committed to the values that recommend it. (Contains 6 notes.)