the HOOK (aka finding an advocate on campus)

wyogal · May 17, 2005, 7:40pm

Well, clarification is part of the forum process, isn’t it? :)

Calmom: To continue to go with my example, I don’t expect the Admissions Office to contact the Asian Studies chair, but I think the opposite will occur. Chair emphasized that S & BF should let him know when they have submitted the applications. I think this may be very close to your situation, as Chair said to all of us (S,BF,me,my husband), in public, that having students like this will allow the department to grow in terms of offering higher level classes. This in itself would be an asset also to Admissions, as something to promote. In your D’s case (classics, maybe?) not only would I search out the schools with a great reputation (even though it’s waning) for that, but would do much research on who & what is there now–see next paragraph.

Momsdream: Point well taken. But there is a bit of a difference between simple networking for admissions’ sake and developing a common interest. We have told S that since he insists on applying all over the US (with the attendant costs of visiting- BWI to Portland = $500 per person on a good day-whew!) we insist that he go prepared, having looked into what all the physics, math, and chem professors are researching, chosen the ones that interest him, made appointments and is prepared to ask intelligent questions.

Massguy: No disrespect to athletes intended, so relax, ok? At the same time, I respectfully suggest that you don’t understand the complete situation with regard to academic/EC “hooks” or “special interests.” They are not always measurable, i.e., for the Japanese SAT II, a score of 800 is equal to the 87th percentile. This is because thousands of native speakers take the test. It is not representative of the accomplishment of talented non-natives, like BF who scored 690 as a junior and will take the test again this fall. Iderochi’s son can investigate which schools share the same values, contact the people there who are the “institutional protectors” (for lack of a better term) of those values, converse, and use their suggestions in his application.

Iderochi: You are right, “hook” is an insufficient term as shorthand, but I cannot think of something better. “Common interest”?

To All: I wasn’t entirely clear in my example in the OP. I did not mean to ask about a way for an applicant that is below average in other measures to achieve admittance, only about how kids who meet the match profile (or maybe not too much reach) to distinguish themselves. This is different for every school, and the stats could be very high at some schools and still fall into the middle 50%, right? That middle 50% gets admitted for some reason, and we might be wise to think about that. One can never tell.

massguy · May 18, 2005, 4:45pm

The original poster wrote (directed at me): “I respectfully suggest that you don’t understand the complete situation with regard to academic/EC “hooks” or “special interests.” They are not always measurable, i.e., for the Japanese SAT II, a score of 800 is equal to the 87th percentile. This is because thousands of native speakers take the test.”

Before you respectfully suggest that I don’t completely understand something, you should perhaps realize that you certainly don’t understand the complete situation as to percentile rankings on the Japanese SAT II. While the 800 score is equal to a low percentile for all testtakers, college admissions officer, properly trained in how to assess the scores, will note that there is seperate data that has been taken on the percentile rankings for non-native speakers who have studied a language for a certain number of years. You might take an interest in those charts here:

<a href=“College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools”>College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools;

Accordingly, a 690 score can be evaluated, and will be, and can be used to assess a students language ability as compared to other non-native speakers.

I submit that the SAT II test will remain an objective determining factor as to the academic “hook” of being able to study a language. I may not understand the complete situation, but before you dismiss anyone’s opinion on this board, you should consider that 1.) you wouldn’t have bothered to ask about it if you knew the complete situation yourself and 2.) you should be ready to hear advice , even when it isn’t what you want to hear.

wyogal · May 18, 2005, 8:01pm

Massguy, I wasn’t dismissing your opinion, all right?

Please re-read the OP. I wasn’t asking a question about a particular situation. I know the particular situation–I was there. I assumed we all agreed with the premise that there exist well-qualified applicants who are not accepted at a particular selective college. Why? Most people agree it seems a bit of a toss-up. I was trying to start a brainstorming session to generate ideas to address the issue of how to make a BWRK who meets a school’s selection criteria wind up in the “accepted” pile.

Supposedly, many of these schools are looking for a mixture of students with many different aptitudes and interests. I was hoping for polite interaction that might stimulate some creative thinking by pooling our knowledge and resources.

Thank you for the link, I wouldn’t have known about that before. It does escape me, though, how an admissions officer would necessarily know whether one was a native speaker of a foreign language or not. My son’s BF’s mother could be Japanese, for all they know.

But that really isn’t the point of the thread. I think I do hear your advice, which to me said, “don’t bother; the standbys of SATII’s will suffice.” I accept your opinion, and for some schools you may be correct. I just don’t happen to agree that this is true in every case, or that there do not exist other avenues to enhance an applicant’s chances for success. For example, there are many talents and interests for which there is no SATII, or AP, or whatever standardized “objective” test or measurement.

And please, don’t take everything so personally–I obviously got on your black list right from the beginning. Was it the observation that athletes have their advocates? If that’s what the school wants to do, so be it. I’m not criticizing that. Do you have a reason why we shouldn’t discuss this topic here–does it offend you that people may want to find a way to help the kids succeed at the schools they want to attend? If so, please explain.

I am sorry if you inferred any insult from my remarks; I do try to be neutral in my choice of words, and I don’t find anything in my original post that should have elicited such invective from you. I honestly did not think that this concept for a thread would have provoked such passionate argument about anything. I try to go by “take what you need and leave the rest.” It’s not personal.

eloise · May 18, 2005, 8:08pm

Quick anecdote: Momsdream has a point when she says "you never know who dislikes whom on campus My uncle is a tenured professor at Haverford. He continually spars with the administration and told my daughter not to use his name on her application as it could detract from rather than enhance her chances!

idler · May 18, 2005, 9:33pm

Have to agree with Momsdream re “advocates:” you can’t underestimate the amount of rivalry, internicine warfare and flat out enmity that exists on faculties everywhere I’ve ever been. Let the record speak for itself, don’t try to play influence games unless you’ve got massive firepower.

I want to add that, at least for me, a “hook” means that an applicant can fulfill a particular institutional desire: a point guard who will make a difference, a talented legacy, a nationally ranked tennis player, a child of celebrity or great wealth, a URM who meets admissions standards, things like that. Great facility with foreign languages, skill as an oboe player, love of calculus, super SATs, meaningful community service, a high gpa, glowing letters of recommendation, the lead in the school play are all wonderful and a big help, but they’re not necessarily “hooks,” though they’ll help you as an ordinary academic applicant, which is what you are unless you can fill an institutional need.

calmom · May 18, 2005, 9:33pm

Wyogal, I do appreciate the points you raised, and I had the opportunity to attend a college workshop last night with an experienced admissions officer (dean of admissions for 12 years at Franklin & Marshall college), where the goal of the workshop was to focus on what goes into an effective app to a highly selective college. My notes about the workshop are posted here:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=62929[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=62929</a> (Post #3)

What I got from the workshop is this: Your idea that a “hook” of some kind is important is absolutely true – for the top colleges, every applicant needs some kind of hook or passion that sets their application apart from others.

You are also right that the BF’s experiences with the Japanese exchange as well as years of study are important, and will help his application stand out. He should take the SAT II in Japanese, not because he needs to demonstrate proficiency, but because taking the exam helps prove the point that it is an area of strong interest for him. One thing I learned from the workshop is that ad coms are cynical and look for flaws or holes in an application. If a student has taken years of study in a language he says he wants to major in – and then he doesn’t take the exam - it’s a big red flag (“why not?”).

So one big point is that if a kid is relying on a hook, then everything about the application should be consistent with that hook – for example, it would be a very bad thing for the kid who claims to want to major in Japanese to stop taking the language after only 2 years in high school. (Unless there was a very good reason - such as no more Japanese offered at the school - in which case the application would need to explain that plus the student would need some other activity to demonstrate continued interest).

It is also valuable to have contacts with faculty, because any and all contacts with a school are important for demonstrating interest. In most, but not all, cases, the faculty will let the admissions office know when they have been corresponding with a student. This is not because of the value of having the faculty member as an advocate, but because of the extreme value of making the admissions committee believe that the student is likely to enroll if accepted. From the point of view of the admissions committee, then name of the game is yield. Obviously a student who has formed a good relationship with the faculty in the area where he wants to major is very likely to attend the college if admitted. So in a way, the ad com is more interested in knowing whether the student likes the prof than whether the prof likes the student.

As to more aggressive advocacy – I don’t know - that wasn’t raised at the workshop I attended, and I really see how it could backfire. So from everything else said in this thread, I certainly would not encourage my daughter to solicit that sort of support. If it comes naturally - fine – but I am thinking now it will be much better for her to simply focus on correspondence which has the dual purpose of demonstrating interest and also allowing her to learn more about the department and its faculty.

I do have another concern specific to your situation though – I am not so sure it will help your son with his less-impressive Japanese abilities, to use Japanese as a hook if applying to the same schools as his BF – after all, BF is much more impressive in that regard, and does Bowdoin really need TWO Japanese language students coming from the same high school? I mean, since your son’s stats are much stronger, if both boys apply to some of the same colleges, your son might consider downplaying the Japanese and cultivating some other personal strength, interest or talent. You wrote that your son could use Japanese as a hook but that it was not his strongest feature – one thing I learned from the workshop is that you want your hooks to be strong. The hooks do not have to be academic – but whatever it is, it definitely needs to be a very strong point. A weak hook, in a way, is worse than no hook at all - you don’t want to be in the position of asking for admission based on an interest in something you are not very good at. At that level, the “hook” has more value as being a matter of showing breadth – something mentioned as an additional interest, but not dwelt upon.

calmom · May 18, 2005, 9:42pm

Yes, and no. A “hook” is what makes the applicant stand out from the rest, and every institution needs all kind of students. The problem is that the needs are fluid – we all know that colleges seem desperately need good oboe players, but also that they seem to need only one – so it doesn’t help to be the fifth oboe player to apply that year, nor does it help to be a not-very-good oboe player. Majoring in an under-enrolled department is a potential hook – majoring in an over-enrolled department is not.

Maybe the word “hook” is not the best - because the thing that makes the application stand out is not necessarily the same as the thing that will cause a candidate to be recruited or a factor like being a legacy. The presenter of the workshop I attended last night used the word “gift” instead - and some people use the word “passion” – but the point is, there needs to be some area of special strength that shines through the application, and it needs to also be something that the ad com will see as a quality that will become an important contribution to the college and student community.

idler · May 18, 2005, 9:48pm

Yeah, I’ll go with that, Calmom. I just think that “hook” has a very particular meaning. Gifted kids with a passion for something academic is what every college wants.

calmom · May 18, 2005, 10:20pm

Which is precisely why I don’t like the word “gift” or “passion” so much. You want a particular kind of passion that will also leave the ad com thinking, “we really want this kid at our college.” A passion for collecting postage stamps might be interesting, but it’s hard to answer the question, “what will this person do for our college?”

I’m not so sure that “hook” has such a particular meaning. I found it described this way in an article:

Source: What is Your Hook?
<a href=“Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos”>Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos;

doddsdad · May 19, 2005, 5:13am

I think my comment will be related to this interesting discussion, although it may not sound like it initially. Vanderbilt and Notre Dame are the most selective colleges weve visited. During the info sessions at both, the adcom reps made a major point to tell students not to send a bunch of recommendation letters. The reason cited was the same. They dont want letters from people who dont really know the student. Theyre not even sure they want letters from people who are not teachers or counselors. For example, even if your boss at the local grocery thinks youre wonderful and knows you well, she/he doesnt know you as a student. The Vandy rep told a tale about a student who had submitted a bunch of letters. One of them was a letter of recommendation from a judge who had been a college classmate of the students father. He said it was obvious from the letter that the judge did not know the student, but was writing the letter because her father knew what he had done during his college years. :eek:

In short, they said that they get many recommendation letters from people who tell them their applicants are wonderful. They said they will read all the letters, but they were sending the message not to waste their time. They want letters that tell them things about the student that they dont know and to give them information to determine whether the applicant will be an asset to their college.

They didnt say it explicitly, but I got the impression that they dont really want input and pressure from people who are essentially outside the admissions process. I think that is understandable. Can you imagine the pressure the ND adcom must get from ND alumni wanting to advocate for students? Of course, those advocates are outside the house. Is it different for in house advocates? Maybe some adcoms already resent the influence the coaches have in the admissions process. It may vary between schools (or professors), but I also suspect many (most?) adcoms dont want faculty members attempting to insert themselves into the process unless they have a role or are invited to do so. They didnt say that though, so Im just drawing broad conclusions from narrow information.

Ill hasten to add that I dont think my musings apply to the scenario Wyogal described. Since the faculty member is asking to help the student gain admittance, why not take advantage of his advocacy? I know I would take advantage of his offer if it were my S. Id be cautious though. Momsdream has a point and seeking/accepting in house advocates may be a two-edged sword.

calmom · May 19, 2005, 6:05am

My sense from the workshop I attended is that they just don’t want extraneous information. The ad com will look through an application very quickly to try to get a fairly quick sense of the student - a recommendation letter that is descriptive and reveals something is useful - one that is very general or reveals what is already obvious (kid is a good student, has high test scores, etc.) - is not.

My son got into almost every college he applied to, and I think one aspect was that he had 2 excellent letters of recommendation. They were good because each teacher included an anecdote and some details, rather than generalities - but what I think was really important was that even though the anecdotes were different, it was obvious that the teachers were talking about the same kid. My son’s strong, independent-minded and sometimes quirky personality really emerged. I don’t think my son really had a hook - but I do think that the recommendation letters succeeded in giving the ad coms a vivid sense of the applicant.

Anyway, my guess is that the ad coms are busy enough so that they really don’t want to have a lot of extra stuff to read. I’m not even sure I believe that they really do read every letter submitted - more likely they simply glance over the letters very quickly. One good thing about the workshop was they gave us each a sample application package from a student, assigning us the task of being able to summarize and report the significant information about the student, but not giving us much time – so we really got a sense of the pressure an ad com might be under. It makes you scan things very quickly and pull out highlights. If a student does get an extra letter of recommendation, it had better say something very significant, and also get right to the point in the first paragraph. One way too much advocacy could backfire would be if too much paper in the file got in the way of the ad com finding the really important stuff.

doddsdad · May 19, 2005, 6:59am

Calmom,
I agree with your impressions and comments completely. You heard about the process directly from a former adcom, and I was drawing conclusions based on what they emphasized. I’ll add that our visits were in early April, so many of them still seemed a bit frazzled and preoccupied with their anticipated yield. I wondered if the info sessions would have been different if we had visited during a different time of year, at least whether their emphasis and tone would have been the same.

Your description of your S’s letters are exactly what they said they wanted. I hope my S will be able to secure similar letters.

I recognize that I seem to have pulled us off topic. However, I suspect there may be attributes of advocacy for applicants that may be valid whether it is expressed by an “in house” advocate, or in a letter of recommendation.

massguy · May 19, 2005, 8:54am

I am not the one taking this personally, wyogal. I think you are reading way too much into this. The comment I made about the athlete thing had nothing to do with ANYTHING personal. It was simply to point out that your analogy just doesn’t hold. It isn’t that athletes have a “hook”…its that they have a specific criteria that is valued INSTITUTIONALLY. The difference is that the “hooks” you are decribing are not built into the admissions process in any formal way. Accordingly, it is comparing apples and oranges. The “advocates” of athletes (say, coaches) are not the same as excited faculty members. The athletic recruitment process at most colleges is, by nature, adversarial, between what the coaches want and what the admissions director will allow them to have. In short, its a totally different concept than any decription of a person with language ability talking to a language department.

Re native speakers: The classification is based on the background questions students ask at the beginning (or end, i forget) of the test. So while self reported, theres no reason to lie as it doesnt impact ones actual score.

I would agree with your intial premise, but most “talents” or “hooks” or “passions” do come out in an application. What also comes out is when its not fully realized, or perhaps put on for show. As another poster mentioned, taking the SAT II shows not only ability, but interest. Beyond that, a language interest would likely need to be backed up by work in an extracurricular, perhaps practically utilizing that language ability.

This is what serious applicants do. And when you get down to it, its not a “hook” , its dedication. Very rarely is it heavily strategized if its something that someone naturally wants to do.

calmom · May 19, 2005, 5:49pm

doddsdad - I don’t think that you are veering that far off topic, as I think that we are pretty much discussing what helps and what doesn’t in terms of emphasizing a particular interest or enlisting help via an advocate. I’m not the one who created this topic – so maybe I’m wrong – but I think that there’s a value in brainstorming and throwing out various ideas. I do really believe that when we hear of students who are puzzled in April by why they were rejected when some student with lower stats was accepted, the answer may lie in the way their applications shaped up. Not so much who was advocating for them, but the picture you would get from reading their applications.

massguy - you wrote

That is EXACTLY the point that was hammered home in the workshop I attended. The ad coms are very alert to the idea of an interested being “fully realized”. If they don’t see evidence that the student has taken each thing to the next logical step, they question either the sincerity of the commitment or the strength of the student’s interest.

That doesn’t mean that everything has to be done to the fullest extent – obviously, the student may be doing some EC’s just for fun. But if it the area that is portrayed as the student’s main passion or strongest suit, then it had better show a pattern of consistent development or effort - or at least explain why not.

the HOOK (aka finding an advocate on campus)

CONNECT WITH US