I am asking do you have knowledge that AOs are doing some kind of ‘global ordering’ once they have a set of applicants who they know will be successful?
My point once a first cut is made, AOs (again at holistic schools) are admitting students they want to admit based on any number of factors, many of which are subjective. They shape their classes how they want to, full stop.
I don’t, and neither do you. You can’t make a cut without a global ordering.
I know for a fact that AOs and/or external admissions readers absolutely make cuts without global ordering. Many applications are placed immediately in the ‘no’ pile upon one or two reads, they are never compared to the whole group at all.
“Many applications” doesn’t mean “all applications”. But you still have “whole groups comparison”, no?
I can’t speak for every holistic school’s admission process. But the first cut (or even future cuts) of applicants is not compared to the entire set in any (holistic) system I am familiar with. AOs present their applicants (who haven’t been cut) to the committee, the committee votes. They don’t wait until all applicants are presented to vote. All of the applicants at this point can succeed if admitted, it often comes down to whether the applicant fulfills a need the school has and how hard the AO is advocating for them (and the relative power of the AOs).
Further, once the first set of admits is established, changes can still happen, for example, adding full pays at the expense of those needing aid so the institution can meet revenue goals (they know this because the set of admits on any given day is run thru their predictive analytic model by their consulting firm overnite, then the staff starts fresh the next day). Details of these processes at some schools has been made publicly available in any number of books and articles over the last 20 years or so, not to mention some spirited CC threads.
Alright, let’s go back a bit… How do you decide to cut out a student from school A with GPA 3.9 and keep a student from school B with GPA 3.6?
Holistic schools have highly variable systems/processes. There is much more to each of those students than their GPAs…they aren’t being racked and stacked based on stats. A holistic evaluation will look at the entire application.
With regard to the GPA, as many on this thread have already stated, AOs do deep dives on the transcript and understand the applicant’s GPA in context of the their HS…class rank, GPA, level of rigor, number of core courses, number of honors/APs, IB curriculum, etc. Some applicants fall out on the transcript review, others fall out on other factors or a combination of said factors…some of those factors are objective, some subjective. Institutional needs rule the day.
Take advantage of the many resources to learn about holistic admissions…The Gatekeepers by Jacques Steinberg, Who Gets In and Why by Jeff Selingo, The Years that Matter Most by Paul Tough as a start.
Kid from school A and Kid from school B aren’t being compared to one another. Each application is read to see if the AO can see a compelling case for admission for that student.
Your example is fundamentally flawed because you seem to believe that students are held up in committee, “Should we take Ken with a 3.6 from school A or should we take Bob with the 3.9 school B?” That’s not how it works in the holistic admission processes I know of (through reading books and articles about holistic admissions).
First, not all applications go to committee. There are some applications that are clearcut admits or denies determined by the 1st and/or 2nd readers of the applications. In that case, the AOs only discuss the applications that aren’t so clear cut (that can still be many applications) - and each applicant is presented by the AO and after presentation, the committee votes. In that process, Ken would be presented in whole, and voted on…and later Bob would be presented in whole and voted on. I would assume if they are presented test optional, there will be more information given about class rigor and letters of recommendation if the committee isn’t familiar with the school. That would help place their applications in further context. Kevin may also be an excellent oboe player whose supplemental oboe tape was judged as excellent by the music department at that school. That information would also be shared when Ken’s application came to committee. Bob might have had a post it on one of his letters of rec saying “call me”, and the AO might have gotten additional negative info not found in the written record. Ken might have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkins leukemia his sophomore year and had terrible grades for one of his semesters, as told in his GC rec. Bob might have not taken a rigorous course load. There is a lot of information that places each individual into context within their own application.
Students are being admitted or denied based upon how well their application matches the individual college’s institutional mission and needs. Not on whether one applicant ‘looks better’ than another. If a college doesn’t need an oboe player, maybe Ken gets denied at that school (lower ranked), than the school that ends up admitting him (needs an oboe player and the music department loves his technique). We (as outsiders) won’t know necessarily why one student gets in and why one doesn’t, because we don’t see the whole of their application.
Edited to add (cross posted with @Mwfan1921 - definitely agree with the books recommendations, I would also recommend Rachel Toor’s Admissions Confidential)
I apologize, but I don’t see a path forward in this discussion. Every concrete question is answered with a vague “it depends” answer. I don’t think I care enough to wade through hundreds of words that say the same thing.
The legacies and athletes will have a good chance at admission, and a very small percentage of the other kids may also get in, provided they manage to somehow stand out (likely for reasons other than academics) from their peers at that high school.
No.
There is no “global recalibration.”
Not a problem, because there is no global ordering. The student at the poor high school in rural Wyoming is not being compared to the student from Phillips Exeter.
Your questions suggest a basic misunderstanding about how these schools admit students, with or without test scores. Thanks to the Harvard lawsuit, there is quite a lot of information now available on how Harvard admits. You should check it out.
As stated earlier, holistic admission colleges look at more than just GPA in isolation in admission decisions. For example, when looking at the transcript, they also look at rigor of classes, they look at which classes had the non-A grades and how relevant they are to planned major, upward/downward trend, etc. Regarding harshness of grading / grade inflation, AOs often are familiar with particular HSs, and when not they have information from the HS profile that provides information about grade distribution. This information generally includes average test scores of students within the school. Some colleges going test optional does not mean that HSs will remove average test score figures from their profile page.
In addition to transcript, holistic colleges also look at LORs, essays, out of classroom activities including ECs/awards, interview, personal characteristics and background such as taking advantage of available opportunities and overcoming especially challenging conditions, etc.
The answers you are being given are describing reality, even if you don’t like that reality. You concretely ask about the 3.6 vs the 3.9 student as if the entire rest of their applications are identical. That doesn’t exist in the real world.
So the common agreement on CC is that if the AOs look at all these other things, they can stop to look at any of the things, and more particularly test scores. Because I am certain, that absolutely the same type of studies can show that they can do without ECs, without APs, without GPA, etc.
It actually is very funny how people don’t see how they contradict themselves. 
And the funniest part is that some people don’t realize, that after each change, the applicants adapt and continue to game the system.
Always an interesting video to watch on college admissions - warning: some bias is exposed 
Nope.
Here is a good one from Bloomberg news:
Bonus- clip from Amherst’s room.
I see. Very informative and concrete opinion again. 
It is amusing, I have to admit.
Regardless of whether increasing URM enrollment at GT was a focus before this year (it was), TO absolutely allowed GT to increase its URM enrollment by a significant amount (as well as its first generation enrollment). Both were up by around 30 percent I think. The impact of this on unhooked students was significant. This was absolutely an agenda going in and TO facilitated this focus. Tests are required again at GT and I expect URM and first generation enrollment to decrease this year, but we will see.
To clarify, no, that is not the prevailing viewpoint here. Nor is it a viewpoint that anyone has expressed. A number of posters have explained their viewpoint, yet you still misrepresent it. Perhaps if you didn’t, there would be less confusion and the conversation would be more productive.
Better?