Access to higher education is often competitive, and much attention has been placed on the question of admission decision-making in such high stakes situations. We identify various approaches to distributive justice and consider these under the framework developed by Pike distinguishes between 'egalitaria' (everyone gets the same); 'necessitia' (people get what they need); 'desertia' (people get what they deserve); and 'marketia' (the market decides what people get). Considering applicants in context is one approach to deciding admissions designed to enhance fairness and support social justice. This approach is practiced in a range of countries including the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan and operates under names such as Contextual Admissions (CA), Holistic Assessment (HA) or Holistic Review (HR). This thought piece considers the philosophical/normative and practical reasoning approaches that underpin CA. We use the case of English higher education to illustrate the political and philosophical debates, to highlight practical challenges and potential limitations and to identify further considerations for realising the benefits of contextualising university applicants.