<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
No, I just mean that grad school admissions seem to be less strictly numbers-based than undergrad -- that you can happen to have a low GRE score or a low GPA and still get into top programs if you have some other mitigating piece of your application. </p>
<p>What I was actually thinking when I wrote that was that it's not possible to tell whether someone will get into a certain grad school based on numbers alone -- having a 4.0 undergrad GPA and a perfect GRE score won't really help you for science programs if you have no research experience. I would expect GPAs of students admitted to top grad schools to have a much broader distribution than GPAs of students admitted to top undergrad schools.</p>
<p>I do agree that admission to top grad programs is a lot more predictable than admission to top undergrad programs, but I'm not sure what the source of that disparity is.</p>
<p>Perhaps admission to top undergrad schools is equally holistic, but graduate school admissions are more academically meritocratic? Or is it just that there are fewer obviously qualified candidates for graduate admissions?</p>