<p>Two kids posted solid academic stats but lost their athletic hooks due to injuries. It would be useful to know what admissions offices want so that we can move along to next option. Hooks are described in CC. But it would be useful for admissions to be more transparent. I only get squishy replies. Are admissions officers sausage makers?</p>
<p>They don’t want to be that transparent about hooks, because they want potential hook applicants to believe that the preference is large, while they want potential non-hook applicants to believe that the preference is small.</p>
<p>Sigh. Can we THINK for a minute here? They want people who are original and true to their authentic selves, not people who twist themselves into pretzels to be what they think an admissions committee wants.</p>
<p>What do you think would happen if they announced that a “hook” was being student council president, or editor of the yearbook, or tuba-player, or whatever? Everyone would start to become that. They’d be inundated with ten thousand identical applicants. And that would be boring, and not add to the class.</p>
<p>I don’t think colleges are deliberately being vague. I think it is because any “hook” is part of many aspects that they look at, and they base admission decisions on multiple factors. There are no guarantees, with or without a “hook”.</p>
<p>
The common data set shows what admissions offices use to grade students. Generally it’s high GPA, rigorous classes and high scores, with some also looking at ECs. I agree that the “hook” probably varies yearly (except for the 6’ 4" quarterback who can run a 4.3 40).</p>
<p>I think it is pretty clear that some things are actual “hooks.” Everyone knows what they are. If you are hooked, your file is put in the pile for kids with that hook for consideration. Or at least so legend has it. For everyone else, the “extra” things are part of the picture, things that might make them stand out from the rest of the herd and contribute to a vibrant mix in the student body. </p>
<p>So if your kids were potential recruited athletes, but can no longer compete on that level, their athletic hook is gone. Unless they are URMs, legacies, development admits, or famous, they are now unhooked, and will be considered on the same basis as every other kid. You can’t just go out an develop a hook all of a sudden. </p>
<p>And, as Pennylane said, being hooked is no guarantee in any case, that is, unless your stats have passed muster and an athletic coach has used up a recruitment spot on you.</p>
<p>Think about one obvious hook, like being a URM. You’d think that would be pretty straight forward, right. Now do a search. You’ll fine threads like, “One of my kid’s great- grandparents is Hispanic. Is that a hook?” Pizzagirl is absolutely right. Revealing the hooks would have dozens of kids with no interest in barbershop quartets rushing to voice coaches! </p>
<p>I think we are straying into tip territory here. ;)</p>
<p>A very selective college tries to created a “balanced class” of the most interesting (as well as highly qualified) applicants they happen to get in any given year. What is “interesting”? I suppose they know it when they see it.
<a href=“Want to Get into Harvard? Spend More Time Staring at the Clouds: Rethinking the Role of Extracurricular Activities in College Admissions - Cal Newport”>http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/02/18/want-to-get-into-harvard-spend-more-time-staring-at-the-clouds-rethinking-the-role-of-extracurricular-activities-in-college-admissions/</a></p>
<p>That’s a great little article, and I think that approach worked pretty well for both my kids. (Even my comp sci guy was interesting to other comp sci guys!) I loved the link someone supplied in the comments: <a href=“xkcd: Honor Societies”>http://xkcd.com/703/</a></p>
<p>My advice would be if you get interested in something, allow yourself the time to get really interested and don’t be afraid to make those calls to adults who can help you be interesting. My older son had some great programming opportunities because of run-ins with neighbors or asking relatives for opportunities.</p>
<p>Why do people do this backwards?
Why do students not look at their interests and achievements and find a school that matches that, rather than the other way around?
My kids did the first thing & they were admitted to all their choices.</p>
<p>Here’s transparency for you:</p>
<p>If a kid is in the top half of applicants anyway, then the following can function as hooks:
Playing an original composition at Lincoln Center with the New York Philharmonic; publishing a best-selling novel; having grown up in a homeless shelter, winning Siemens/Physics Olympiad AT A COLLEGE WHICH DOESN"T ALREADY ATTRACT THE TOP MATH/SCI KIDS in the world already (i…e its usefulness as a hook is more pronounced at Williams or Swarthmore than at Cal Tech or MIT), being named as co-author on a published study funded by the Center for Disease Control on transmission of communicable diseases among the elderly, having a parent who is a US Senator from the state that college is located in.</p>
<p>Happy you asked? How much more transparent can you need, other than looking at who gets admitted where? The vast majority of candidates are unhooked, but assume that being Valedictorian and winning the town’s service award for most volunteer hours at the homeless shelter make them hooked.</p>
<p>Well said, blossom! :)</p>
<p>Or, in the words of the “amoeba” at Admissions Problems, “No, your kid isn’t special at all, actually.”</p>
<p>Since life is so short, I am always amazed at people (kids included) who do not do things that they like and enjoy. Colleges would rather kids who love what they do, than the cookie cutter factory types.</p>
<p>The article posted by tk21769 presumes that doing research as a high-schooler is pretty common. Is it really? There are always a few kids whose parents have connections to college or industry labs who can enjoy that opportunity, but I was not aware it was so very widespread. It seems to me Olivia had a very interesting EC, and therefore her case does indeed fit my understanding of how admissions works. I would not have considered her an outlier, unless her test scores and GPA were truly mediocre, which we don’t know that they were. </p>
<p>“cookie cutter factory types”
I have heard this phrase before, but what exactly does it mean? Can you explain?</p>
<p>I think it’s rather unfortunate that colleges undervalue a child who spends his/her teen years exploring varied interests. It seems to be much more desirable for a student to have a “passion” even if he/she does not spend a minute pursuing said “passion” one he/she actually attends that college (yep, I’ve seen that happen). Or conversely the kid who sticks out an activity in HS that he/she no longer enjoys, but hey the colleges want to see four years of participation in that activity.
It is all such a silly game.</p>
<p>My $.02… I couldn’t agree more that colleges want different, interesting, and memorable kids to make their student body different, interesting, and memorable. My D14 has an unusual EC that defines her. For 11 years she has competed, taught, mentored, performed, coached, and traveled around the world sharing her passion. When she interviewed with adcoms, deans, etc., they all said the same thing to her, “Wow, you’re/that’s so INTERESTING or different/memorable/unique, etc.”. Is she going to discover the cure for cancer? No. In fact, not interested in STEM at all. Great stats? Nope. But, she’s 5 for 5 so far in acceptances and we know her uniqueness can be a breath of fresh air to admission teams looking for that point of difference to say, “YES, we want you at our school.”</p>
<p>Fallgirl, I don’t think colleges undervalue kids who explore a wide range of interests. But I think there is one approach that no longer pays off: HS Val who plays a mean game of tennis, volunteers at the animal rescue shelter, is a member of 8 clubs and activities at school, is President of some Honor Society or other HS organization that doesn’t produce much of value, writes an essay about wanting to major in “pre med”, and standardized test scores that are marginally lower than the GPA ought to predict. I think this now spells dilettante, not a kid who is exploring and spending HS learning about him or herself.</p>
<p>So cookie cutter meaning, substitute soccer for tennis, and animal shelter for the Red Cross, and you can find several thousand kids in the applicant pile who look just like this. I don’t think kids need to contort themselves to fit a college, but pity the poor adcom trying to track how many National Honor Society presidents they’ve already admitted. So an application comes in from a kid who builds replica European cathedrals out of Popsicle sticks or spends the summer at the local historical society creating a digital archive out of the paper and parchment files, and that application is going to get a second read. Not because it’s a silly game, but because at the end of the day, universities are repositories of knowledge and research and culture, and kids who have intellectual interests are typically better at communicating “why me” in an application than the kids who are busy running from club to club after school.</p>
<p>I still don’t get it. I don’t see what’s uninteresting about that. I guess only “quirky” activities need apply. Sigh.</p>
<p>While we are on the topic of hooks, I am now beginning to think that 40 years ago I should have taken my good grades and test scores, applied to some top schools (I couldn’t get in now, but would have had a chance then) and went up the you-know-where in debt to pay for such a school so that my kids could be “legacies”. My bad for attending a cc and transferring to a school my family could afford.
Forgive me folks, but I am in the middle of admissions this year and am just sick of it.</p>