<p>
[quote]
I think it's worth noting that graduate admissions are generally more holistic than undergradute admissions, and every aspect of the application is important
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, perhaps I have a different definition of the word 'holistic', but if by that word, you tend to mean 'well-rounded' or diverse or something of that sort, then I would say that, at the top schools, grad admissions are FAR LESS holistic than in undergrad admissions. Put another way, grad admissions are far more straightforward in terms of knowing what you need to do to get in. If you have great published research, great grades at a top school, great rec's and great GRE scores, you are going to get into one of the top schools. Heck, even deficiencies in a few more categories may not prevent you from getting. Molliebatmit has freely admitted that she didn't get super-top grades at MIT, but she got into all of the top grad schools anyway. (Then again, we are talking about MIT, where simply passing your classes is an accomplishment). </p>
<p>Contrast that with undergrad admissions at the top schools, where you can have top grades, top test scores, top rec's, and top everything else... and still not get into any of the top programs. Or if you do get into one of them, it may be because you happen to luckily fulfill some particular 'diversity need' at that school. For example, I know one girl back in high school who got into Harvard but not into any of the other Ivies she applied to. While obviously nobody knows exactly why she was admitted to Harvard, it was generally believed by most people, including that girl herself, that the reason why she was admitted was simply because the Harvard Field Hockey team just happened to have graduated their star goalie that year and so needed a replacement, and she had led the high school field hockey team to a top state ranking that year. The other Ivies apparently didn't need a goalie and so didn't admit her.</p>
<p>The point is, while grad admissions at the top schools are not completely predictable, they seem to be far more predictable and less holistic than are admissions to the top undergrad programs. This is especially true when you're talking about PhD programs. No PhD program cares if you are a star polo player or a great bassoon player or were President of the Tiddly Winks Club or any other activity unless it has a direct application to the Phd program you are applying to. {For example, maybe being a genius bassoon player may help you get into a top PhD music program, but it certainly won't help you to get into a top PhD Chemical Engineering program}. </p>
<p>In that sense, you could say that grad admissions are more pure than are the top undergrad programs. Plenty of people are admitted or rejected from the top undergrad programs for reasons that, frankly, have nothing to do with academics. Put another way, being a star athlete might help you get into a top engineering school like Stanford for undergrad admissions, but is going to do nothing for you in terms of getting you into Stanford for grad engineering.</p>