<p>When I said
Perhaps admission to top undergrad schools is equally holistic, but graduate school admissions are more academically meritocratic?
</p>
<p>I meant
The real issue seems to be what are the mitigating factors involved. In grad-school, the mitigating factors are almost exclusively academic or research factors. For example, a stellar published paper can basically cure all ills. But this is perfectly logic because publications demonstrate research/academic skill. In undergrad, the mitigating factors can be things that have absolutely nothing to do with academics, for example, the ability to throw a football, or in the case of the girl I know, the ability to prevent anybody from scoring goals in field hockey. These skills have nothing to do with academics. The same could be said for music or artistic talent. Put another way, star athletic/artistic/music ability can really help you to get into a top undergrad program, but won't help you get into a top PhD program, unless that PhD has to do specifically with that talent.
</p>
<p>So both processes are looking at a variety of factors, some objective(ish) and some subjective, but the subjective grad school factors are pretty exclusively academic and the subjective undergrad factors are generally not.</p>
<p>I did, incidentally, write down on all of my grad school apps that I was an MIT cheerleader, and many of my interviewers brought cheerleading up with me during my interview. I don't think it really helped me very much (and probably not at all compared to my research experience, LORs, and publications), but I think it made me a little more memorable in the eyes of the application readers.</p>