2024 Washington DC area College commits

[Anonymous]

This is such a useless thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sure, they had impressive extracurriculars. But. not hooks.

Sorry, impressive extracurriculars are totally a hook. You don't think that being a Regeneron finalist or nationally-ranked debater or performing solo at Carnegie Hall helps an applicant stand out to admissions offices?

A “Hook” is not a variable. It’s a built-in factor like….legacy, low-income, underrepresented geographic location, first-gen…..used to be URM (that’s not a hook anymore). Amazing accomplishments are not “hooks”, they are application criteria that any admit to a top University needs to have.

So being a recruited athlete isn't a hook, because it's not built-in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sure, they had impressive extracurriculars. But. not hooks.

Sorry, impressive extracurriculars are totally a hook. You don't think that being a Regeneron finalist or nationally-ranked debater or performing solo at Carnegie Hall helps an applicant stand out to admissions offices?

A “Hook” is not a variable. It’s a built-in factor like….legacy, low-income, underrepresented geographic location, first-gen…..used to be URM (that’s not a hook anymore). Amazing accomplishments are not “hooks”, they are application criteria that any admit to a top University needs to have.

So being a recruited athlete isn't a hook, because it's not built-in?

I’m PP and I do consider being an athlete a hook.

[Anonymous]

Recruited athlete is a hook because it takes the application out of the regular pool and affords special treatment for that application that is not based on academics but on an extracurricular given higher priority than other ECs because … money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sure, they had impressive extracurriculars. But. not hooks.

Sorry, impressive extracurriculars are totally a hook. You don't think that being a Regeneron finalist or nationally-ranked debater or performing solo at Carnegie Hall helps an applicant stand out to admissions offices?

A “Hook” is not a variable. It’s a built-in factor like….legacy, low-income, underrepresented geographic location, first-gen…..used to be URM (that’s not a hook anymore). Amazing accomplishments are not “hooks”, they are application criteria that any admit to a top University needs to have.

So being a recruited athlete isn't a hook, because it's not built-in?

I’m PP and I do consider being an athlete a hook.

Then your definition of "hook" makes no sense, given that you believe that being a recruited athlete is a hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sure, they had impressive extracurriculars. But. not hooks.

Sorry, impressive extracurriculars are totally a hook. You don't think that being a Regeneron finalist or nationally-ranked debater or performing solo at Carnegie Hall helps an applicant stand out to admissions offices?

A “Hook” is not a variable. It’s a built-in factor like….legacy, low-income, underrepresented geographic location, first-gen…..used to be URM (that’s not a hook anymore). Amazing accomplishments are not “hooks”, they are application criteria that any admit to a top University needs to have.

So being a recruited athlete isn't a hook, because it's not built-in?

I’m PP and I do consider being an athlete a hook.

Then your definition of "hook" makes no sense, given that you believe that being a recruited athlete is a hook.

Of course being a recruited athlete is a hook. What planet are you from that you don’t think it is. It is actually the biggest hook there is. Bigger than URM. On D3 level, there are pre reads in the summer, if you pass, coach basically works with admissions office to help get you in during ED round.

[Anonymous]

Yes, of course it's a hook. I took issue with hook being defined only as a "built-in" factor, which isn't the case for recruited athletes. The vast majority of their hook is earned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, of course it's a hook. I took issue with hook being defined only as a "built-in" factor, which isn't the case for recruited athletes. The vast majority of their hook is earned.

No, the hook earns. For the schools. Lots of kids put in hard work on lots of activities. Only recruited athletes get the oh-they-worked-SO-hard hook. It’s money.

[Anonymous]

So recruited athletes don't deserve anything for the tangible value they bring to a school? Why do you hate free market capitalism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So recruited athletes don't deserve anything for the tangible value they bring to a school? Why do you hate free market capitalism?

Nonsense, its a bunch of paid athletic staff wanting to keep,their jobs. Singers, actors, artists, tutors also bring value nut thetr is no hook there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So recruited athletes don't deserve anything for the tangible value they bring to a school? Why do you hate free market capitalism?

These are schools first , right? Not the minor leagues. Not businesses. Or are they?

Yes, I get it. It won’t change. Just don’t insult people by saying it’s about value to the school community beyond the money.

[Anonymous]

Got it. You have no evidence that athletic departments bring no financial value. It’s all based on feels.

https://www.on3.com/news/usa-today-releases-top-25-total-revenue-college-athletics-programs/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sure, they had impressive extracurriculars. But. not hooks.

Sorry, impressive extracurriculars are totally a hook. You don't think that being a Regeneron finalist or nationally-ranked debater or performing solo at Carnegie Hall helps an applicant stand out to admissions offices?

A top 15 school sent my kid a letter (not a recruited athlete--but lots of honors awards in his sport) that they were impressed with his involvement in his sport while maintaining his grades (he had an uw 4.0)--that said he had a ton of volunteer service and an academic club he was very involved with for 4 years---but his sport stuff stood out. And the team did not recruit him and told him no space for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sure, they had impressive extracurriculars. But. not hooks.

Sorry, impressive extracurriculars are totally a hook. You don't think that being a Regeneron finalist or nationally-ranked debater or performing solo at Carnegie Hall helps an applicant stand out to admissions offices?

A top 15 school sent my kid a letter (not a recruited athlete--but lots of honors awards in his sport) that they were impressed with his involvement in his sport while maintaining his grades (he had an uw 4.0)--that said he had a ton of volunteer service and an academic club he was very involved with for 4 years---but his sport stuff stood out. And the team did not recruit him and told him no space for him.

^^ this was one of those after acceptance letters from the school President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So recruited athletes don't deserve anything for the tangible value they bring to a school? Why do you hate free market capitalism?

These are schools first , right? Not the minor leagues. Not businesses. Or are they?

Yes, I get it. It won’t change. Just don’t insult people by saying it’s about value to the school community beyond the money.

Spoken like someone who's never served on the Board of Trustees of a school or the Board of Directors of a non-profit. Just because maximizing profits for shareholders isn't their goal, it doesn't mean they stop operating like businesses.

Even the most do-gooder organizations have to balance their books, and have finance departments devoted to making sure their colleagues stick with budget forecasts.