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.