Despite a growing body of research on the outcomes of holistic admissions and eliminating standardized test score requirements throughout education, few have documented how organizations transition to holistic review. Implementation, however, may help explain variation in impacts of holistic admissions. This article draws upon theories of organizational routines to examine adoption of holistic review in 13 STEM PhD programs from five universities. We conducted 60- to 90-min interviews with admissions leaders, including a COVID-19 transcript review activity. Data reveal change is multilevel, involving new policy/structural, practice/cultural, and cognitive/interpretive routines, which carry promise for disrupting institutionalized inequities where the politics of changing these routines can be managed. We discuss implications for policy, organizational practice, and future research on academic evaluations.