That's interesting, isn't it? The concept of "holistic" admissions is far less prevalent in PhD programs in general, and this is probably because of the laser-

That's interesting, isn't it? The concept of "holistic" admissions is far less prevalent in PhD programs in general, and this is probably because of the laser-like focus on research. I'm surprised this hasn't been discussed more often in the general media and even here on HN where people tend to know quite a bit more about these things. "Holistic" undergraduate admissions, especially in elite American universities, is extremely prevalent (less so at elite publics than privates). Sports, drama, music, art, volunteer work, "leadership potential", and so forth are all a really big deal. Personal statements tend to be about the applicant as a person. Interestingly, in this regard, professional schools may be more like undergraduate admissions than PhD programs. Personal statements do need to be more specific - you should be able, for instance, to articulate why you want to study law when you apply to Yale law school, whereas it's ok to be applying to Yale undergrad without a very clear academic plan, but they're still very interested (or at least claim to be) in holistic, well rounded individuals. This probably shouldn't be such a surprise, people often say "you can do anything with a law degree", whereas people tend not to say that about a PhD in biochemistry. Not that you can't, but nobody thinks it makes sense to do that as a generalist degree. So it's ok to go to law school with the intent of becoming a generalist, or just a "leader" (attrition rates at elite law schools are close to zero anyway, so you can pursue your studies somewhat indifferently if you aren't keen on law review or being at the top of your class). It's unlikely that you could pursue a PhD in Mathematics with this attitude or approach (many of the hard science PhD programs have close to a 50% attrition rate). Another big factor is that graduate students in STEM programs aren't really students in the same way an undergraduate is (or a Law or MBA student, or to a lesser extent a first or second year med student). STEM Phd students are really (to put the most positive spin possible on this) low paid apprentices who generate far more in value than they recoup in teaching or research stipends. I've read plenty of valid criticisms of "holistic" admissions, now and in the past. But I actually do think that the absence of the generalist STEM degree does harm our field. We could benefit from people who believe "you can do anything with a STEM MS or Phd" but who intend to work in government, for instance. As it stands, most of our leaders are lawyers who encourage engineering for others…