I want to give a real-life, true example of where I think this rule could hurt an underpriveleged kid.
My mother used to tutor athletes in a perrennial top-25 college basketball program. This program would get many inner-city kids...many who barely met minimum NCAA certification requirements. She once had a basketball player who entered reading at a 2nd/3rd grade level. Pretty much straight C's through HS, but probably didn't even perform at that level...was likely passed through because of his athletic prowess (teachers may not have wanted to "kill" the dream). One might guess that this was a great athlete who didn't care much about school, maybe lazy in the classroom?
To the contrary my mother found out! He was as motivated as could be. You see, he was never challenged in the classroom to do the work, he was simply pushed on to the next grade through HS. Little/no accountability from his HS teachers. But the rubber meets the road in college and within a year, he was diagnosed as dyslexic and was put in a reading/writing skills program that brought him up to a college level. He was never late for a tutoring session or classes...he was often there ahead of my mother asking why SHE was late?!
This young man went on to graduate and become a social counselor for inner-city youth. He is a bright, energetic and good young man. He has had articles written about him in major newspapers for overcoming his disability and his underpriveleged background.
Would he be passed over by the recruiters as "too high of a risk" nowadays? I believe so. Would that be the right thing? Absolutely not.
Its good to have standards and ideals, but there has to be a human element to it too...an allowance for the exception. I worry about these rules and how they affect someone like this kid. Where would he be today without the "break" he got through his athletic skills to attend college? Hard to say...he's a good person, but I believe he's paying off big dividends from the break he caught a few years ago.