I guess you could call it smug, but it is also communicating the truth, that universities have decided the top 5-10% of non-legacy applicants are equally good. Most metrics stop working near the limits of their dynamic range, so they could be right, but I don't really know one way or the other.
It's more smug when you read this article from the perspective of a recently-rejected 18 year old, knowing that you're the person the article is referring to. :)
In all seriousness, the MIT admissions reps I interacted with at the time were responsive, friendly, and more transparent with me about the process than you'd expect. I actually did ask them for feedback once the cycle was over, and it basically came down to the concern that I would be too focused on doing "cool stuff" and not enough on core academics, which was probably evidenced by my HS transcript. I was a solid A- student, but you could tell my priorities were extracurricular.
Hindsight being 20/20 two decades on, they weren't far off the mark on that feedback, but it never wound up being a problem.
Exactly, so I can only speculate at this point on the motivations. I suspect undergrad admissions committees are incentivized to maximize the first year retention rate, so they are overly conservative when it comes to selecting for people who they think won’t flunk out the first year.
