Blair Hall at Princeton University. (Photo by: Loop Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
The promise of a “holistic review” has become ubiquitous in higher education admissions. As colleges increasingly adopt test-optional policies and re-evaluate their admissions criteria in response to calls for equity and accessibility, many now emphasize that applicants will be considered on the basis of all of their materials.
Take, for example, Harvard University. The school’s admissions website states: “Harvard seeks to assemble an extraordinary and diverse class of undergraduate students by conducting a wide-ranging review of every aspect of each applicant’s background and experience.” Similarly, Brown University asserts: “Brown considers each application holistically and individually, making admission decisions on a case-by-case basis to build a class that is both academically talented and reflective of the diverse range of perspectives and experiences essential for a world-class learning and research community.”
Yet, in the 2022-23 cycle, Harvard received 56,937 applicants vying for just 1,220 spots. Likewise, Brown received 51,302 applicants competing for 1,730 spots.
Under such circumstances, is the promise of a “holistic review” truly attainable? Can competitive schools really evaluate all aspects of each student’s candidacy within the timeframe of the application cycle?
Jeffrey Selingo writes in a recent op-ed for The New York Times: “Since nearly all these selective colleges promise that applicants will get a holistic review, not one based only on grades or a test score (if submitted), their admissions staffs are under pressure to wade through a rising pile of applications — with their essays, recommendations and laundry lists of activities — in the same amount of time as before.” In short, if one defines “holistic review” as a full consideration of all aspects of an applicant, it is an unattainable promise. Especially as colleges receive more applications than ever before, it is impossible to truly evaluate each applicant as a whole person, no matter how earnest an admissions committee’s attempts to do so.
The problem is further compounded by colleges’ vague use of the term. The difficulty posed by colleges’ attempts to determine the factors that constitute such a review has been highlighted in the ongoing Supreme Court case SFFA v. Harvard, as SFFA alleges that the holistic review process is a veiled means for the school to discriminate against Asian American applicants. Some of the most tense exchanges during last fall’s oral arguments centered on the inability of Harvard’s lawyers to specifically define how much weight admissions committees assign to each element of a student’s application and background—whether race, academic ability, socioeconomic background, or interests—within a holistic review.
So how can students craft applications poised for such an ambivalent “holistic review”? The language of the “holistic review” signals the fundamental difference in current admissions processes from those of thirty years ago. While admissions committees cannot take into account all of the diverse circumstances, experiences, and interests that distinguish an individual student, they are seeking to admit students with clear and distinct passions and a story that is traceable through their application materials. The review is thus holistic in the sense that admissions committees don’t just look for perfect scores and grades, but it is not holistic in the sense that they can or do take into account everything about the student as a person.
In fact, Harvard’s admissions page goes on to state: “Factors such as life experiences, overcoming adversity, or specific talents are particularly important in deciding who will be offered admission.” While test scores, activities lists, letters of recommendation, and essays are all part of the evaluation process, students must present a cohesive and focused narrative through those materials if they hope to stand out to top schools—an achievement which requires students to strategically prioritize the aspects of their candidacy which are most relevant and distinct.
In their own definition of holistic admissions, College Board notes that one of the key points is “[c]onsideration of multiple, often intersecting, factors—academic, nonacademic, and contextual—that, in combination, uniquely define and reflect accomplishments and potential contributions of each applicant in light of his or her background and circumstances.”
Within this definition, the most consequential phrase is “in combination.”
The critical task for students aspiring to attend elite universities is to show how all of their accomplishments and experiences intersect to show their specialized, actionable interests and unique story. In order to do so, students must be proactive from early in their high school career to consider how their activities, coursework, and extracurriculars combine to illustrate their defining passions.
