Admission to selective colleges has grown more competitive, yielding student bodies that are unrepresentative of the U.S. population. Admission officers report using sorting (e.g., GPA, standardized tests) and concertedly cultivated (e.g., extracurricular activities) and ascriptive status (e.g., whether an applicant identifies as a member of a racially minoritized group) criteria to make decisions. Using latent class analysis, we identified three groupings of institutions based on the admission criteria they claim to value. Public institutions largely practiced a “coarse sieve” approach that relied on sorting criteria. Some private institutions practiced “fine sieve” admissions by emphasizing concertedly cultivated and ascriptive status criteria. A few privates employed the “double sieve” that combined sorting and concertedly cultivated criteria. Results illuminate the shape of the admissions sieve, identifying institutional contexts that inform the admissions practices selective colleges claim to use.

中文翻译：

---

筛子的形状：招生申请的哪些组成部分在特定的机构背景下最重要？

名牌大学的录取竞争变得更加激烈，产生的学生群体无法代表美国人口。招生官员报告使用排序（例如，GPA、标准化考试）、共同培养（例如，课外活动）和归因状态（例如，申请人是否属于种族少数群体的成员）标准来做出决定。通过潜在类别分析，我们根据机构声称重视的录取标准将机构分为三类。公共机构很大程度上采用了依赖于分类标准的“粗筛”方法。一些私立院校实行“细筛”招生​​，强调共同培养和归属标准。一些私人采用了“双筛”，将分类和协同培养标准结合起来。结果阐明了招生筛子的形状，确定了为选择性大学声称使用的招生实践提供信息的制度背景。