Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dd got into HYP in 2020 with no hooks (yes, I know, pre-TO). We are in New England and admissions pretty much as tough here as anywhere. Directly and indirectly I have known a number of kids over the years who got in to the most competitive schools without being URM/first gen or athletes, I don't know about their legacy status. But what these kids all had in common was they really dug in to their own education and actively sought out opportunities to grow and contribute, they were all kids excited about learning and whatever their activities were it showed in the application I imagine. That's not a guarantee for a spot at a reachy-reach school, plenty of equally awesome kids with nearly identical apps probably didn't get in. But it's certainly possible.

Totally irrelevant in the TO world.

yeah it's not though. this school's acceptance in rate in last 4 years has gone from 5.91 to 4.46%, a very small change certainly reflective of increased number of applications (TO). It's still nearly impossible to get in, as it always has been. But that doesn't mean that it was previously about "the stats" and now suddenly it's about other things. My kid's stats, for example, were definitely not perfect. They were great, but that's not what got her in. And the other kids I can think of over the years have also not been the perfect stats kids, often not the valedictorians, who have gotten in to the schools with the toughest admissions numbers. you need to understand how holistic admissions works, it has its critics and I get the arguments. but it has always and will continue to give schools the ability to build a class based on a lot of intangibles. so you can think of the stats as the "first round", but a perfect stats kid who doesn't get in to a top school didn't miss out because they didn't have a hook, they just may not have had whatever combination of all the other stuff that spoke to the adcom committee that day.

+1000000000

The kids I know attending elite universities are all bright, motivated, a step above the average really smart kid. I call it the "it" factor. They are the kids who the universities think will be game changers in the future. Each uni defines it slightly differently, based on what they want/need to craft the ideal freshman class.
We get that many do not like/do not understand these intangibles, but they are likely here to stay. And really I think it's in the schools best interest to keep them.

Ok, do you think the kid who got into Duke that was posted by PP has an “it” factor?

... Yes. Graduating top 5% at what seems like one of the top boarding schools in the country is no joke. Also seems like a well-rounded student, you have to remember that at boarding school athletics are often a major part of the experience. Juggling the workload and athletics is not easy at boarding school, and not to mention there were some standout math abilities. On the other hand, he clearly benefits from lots of resources and advantages being upper class, and I'm assuming he got his hedge fund internship through a family or school connection. Overall, I think it's a clear admit at many top schools regardless of privilege. Maybe not Harvard or MIT but outside of that any school would have probably been interested.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A non-stem male from a top 20 private high school is a hook. BTW, there is not a top 20 private high school in this area.

+1

Source and metrics? I ask because DS is at a T15 school currently and in small/seminar/discussion classes with kids from Brearley, Dalton and a couple of the not-Andover/Exeter boarding schools that nevertheless appear in Niche-type lists. DS is surprised at the (low-level) of discourse and poor writing from his classmates. Though, the worst offenders in the I-Cannot-Write-Intelligently sweepstakes are the handful of public HS kids he knows. With, of course, 45 AP classes (he knows because it comes up in their math-econ-CS career discussions).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top 25 or so schools mostly are uninterested in filling their classes with straight, white UMC students. Instead, they fill their classes with URMs, first generation students, immigrants and children of immigrants, openly queer, some international students, and athletes necessary to field their teams. Then they fill any remaining spots with the UMC straight white kids. Which means there aren’t a whole lot of spots left, and likelihood of getting in is pretty low. But still possible.

Yet straight white Umc kids are still the most prevalent group on any top 25 campus. Go figure

That's because they are athletes or children to big donors,etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top 25 or so schools mostly are uninterested in filling their classes with straight, white UMC students. Instead, they fill their classes with URMs, first generation students, immigrants and children of immigrants, openly queer, some international students, and athletes necessary to field their teams. Then they fill any remaining spots with the UMC straight white kids. Which means there aren’t a whole lot of spots left, and likelihood of getting in is pretty low. But still possible.

Yet straight white Umc kids are still the most prevalent group on any top 25 campus. Go figure

Anonymous wrote:He's an AIME qualifier interested in classics who is a decent athlete. I doubt there's another applicant with the same profile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A non-stem male from a top 20 private high school is a hook. BTW, there is not a top 20 private high school in this area.

+1

Anonymous wrote:A non-stem male from a top 20 private high school is a hook. BTW, there is not a top 20 private high school in this area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, you don't need a hook. You need to be very good and have a little luck on your side.

Agree. And “very good” is not synonymous with 4.0 and 1600 SAT—I think that’s actually what’s causing people to go crazy and assume you can’t get in unhooked. “Very good” increasingly seems synonymous with “special,” meaning distinct/appealing in the combination of attributes an applicant brings—leadership, intellectual acumen, curiosity, engagement, work ethic, ability to make a meaningful contribution to the campus community, etc.

In other words, subjective process -> non-transparency -> schools are able to do whatever they want to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm seeing that the definition of "hook" might vary.

-Top grades
-Top scores
-Awards
-Leadership
-Volunteer
-Strong eval teachers / alum
-URM / UR rural area

Only the last is a hook.

Some awards could be hooks. Like winning a major science fair, being a Coca-Cola Scholar, etc.

That’s an accomplishment, not a hook.

.

Call it what you want but have a very pointy accomplishment showing deep, sustained interest and talent at something. Music, sports, science, dance, writing, debate, art, etc. Most of these students at these places that are not big donors or nepo kids have some crazy high talent in one particular discipline. Really sell that in the application.

Anonymous wrote:A non-stem male from a top 20 private high school is a hook. BTW, there is not a top 20 private high school in this area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, you don't need a hook. You need to be very good and have a little luck on your side.

Agree. And “very good” is not synonymous with 4.0 and 1600 SAT—I think that’s actually what’s causing people to go crazy and assume you can’t get in unhooked. “Very good” increasingly seems synonymous with “special,” meaning distinct/appealing in the combination of attributes an applicant brings—leadership, intellectual acumen, curiosity, engagement, work ethic, ability to make a meaningful contribution to the campus community, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dd got into HYP in 2020 with no hooks (yes, I know, pre-TO). We are in New England and admissions pretty much as tough here as anywhere. Directly and indirectly I have known a number of kids over the years who got in to the most competitive schools without being URM/first gen or athletes, I don't know about their legacy status. But what these kids all had in common was they really dug in to their own education and actively sought out opportunities to grow and contribute, they were all kids excited about learning and whatever their activities were it showed in the application I imagine. That's not a guarantee for a spot at a reachy-reach school, plenty of equally awesome kids with nearly identical apps probably didn't get in. But it's certainly possible.

Totally irrelevant in the TO world.

yeah it's not though. this school's acceptance in rate in last 4 years has gone from 5.91 to 4.46%, a very small change certainly reflective of increased number of applications (TO). It's still nearly impossible to get in, as it always has been. But that doesn't mean that it was previously about "the stats" and now suddenly it's about other things. My kid's stats, for example, were definitely not perfect. They were great, but that's not what got her in. And the other kids I can think of over the years have also not been the perfect stats kids, often not the valedictorians, who have gotten in to the schools with the toughest admissions numbers. you need to understand how holistic admissions works, it has its critics and I get the arguments. but it has always and will continue to give schools the ability to build a class based on a lot of intangibles. so you can think of the stats as the "first round", but a perfect stats kid who doesn't get in to a top school didn't miss out because they didn't have a hook, they just may not have had whatever combination of all the other stuff that spoke to the adcom committee that day.

+1000000000

The kids I know attending elite universities are all bright, motivated, a step above the average really smart kid. I call it the "it" factor. They are the kids who the universities think will be game changers in the future. Each uni defines it slightly differently, based on what they want/need to craft the ideal freshman class.
We get that many do not like/do not understand these intangibles, but they are likely here to stay. And really I think it's in the schools best interest to keep them.

Ok, do you think the kid who got into Duke that was posted by PP has an “it” factor?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dd got into HYP in 2020 with no hooks (yes, I know, pre-TO). We are in New England and admissions pretty much as tough here as anywhere. Directly and indirectly I have known a number of kids over the years who got in to the most competitive schools without being URM/first gen or athletes, I don't know about their legacy status. But what these kids all had in common was they really dug in to their own education and actively sought out opportunities to grow and contribute, they were all kids excited about learning and whatever their activities were it showed in the application I imagine. That's not a guarantee for a spot at a reachy-reach school, plenty of equally awesome kids with nearly identical apps probably didn't get in. But it's certainly possible.

Totally irrelevant in the TO world.

yeah it's not though. this school's acceptance in rate in last 4 years has gone from 5.91 to 4.46%, a very small change certainly reflective of increased number of applications (TO). It's still nearly impossible to get in, as it always has been. But that doesn't mean that it was previously about "the stats" and now suddenly it's about other things. My kid's stats, for example, were definitely not perfect. They were great, but that's not what got her in. And the other kids I can think of over the years have also not been the perfect stats kids, often not the valedictorians, who have gotten in to the schools with the toughest admissions numbers. you need to understand how holistic admissions works, it has its critics and I get the arguments. but it has always and will continue to give schools the ability to build a class based on a lot of intangibles. so you can think of the stats as the "first round", but a perfect stats kid who doesn't get in to a top school didn't miss out because they didn't have a hook, they just may not have had whatever combination of all the other stuff that spoke to the adcom committee that day.

+1000000000

The kids I know attending elite universities are all bright, motivated, a step above the average really smart kid. I call it the "it" factor. They are the kids who the universities think will be game changers in the future. Each uni defines it slightly differently, based on what they want/need to craft the ideal freshman class.
We get that many do not like/do not understand these intangibles, but they are likely here to stay. And really I think it's in the schools best interest to keep them.

Ok, do you think the kid who got into Duke that was posted by PP has an “it” factor?