This study examined a holistic admissions review process at one institution to determine whether variance occurred and, if so, possible explanations for it. The study analyzed reader reviews for approximately 15,000 individual undergraduate admission reviews over three years. The primary method was focused on the variance and inter-rater reliability of the application reviews. Findings revealed that subjective measures of performance review, and in this case holistic admissions review, may not be susceptible to high levels of variability with 97 percent of reader reviews showing agreement for this study. Overall, just 3 percent of the subjective application reviews showed variability. Implications and recommendations for future research and professional practice are provided.