Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So name some hooks that are not:
1. Athletics
2. Wealth and wealth related
3. URM

Go.

Physical disability?

No, that is stupid.

Why? You could say it belongs under the URM category.

A great rec from a teacher talking about how a student has never let a missing limb hold him back from any activities will certainly stand out.

But it is not a hook, and if you think it is, then you don't understand what a hook is. And it is nothing like URM, which is connected to a distinct and measurable policy.

A sport like fencing or squash?

Anonymous wrote:field hockey is not a rich kid sport. We had a team at my high school which was the lowest income high school in the state.

Also, it's the second most played sport in the world behind soccer. For the top roster spots in the US, athletes are competing against Europeans and South Africans, for many fewer spots than lacrosse players. It's quite competitive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So name some hooks that are not:
1. Athletics
2. Wealth and wealth related
3. URM

Go.

Physical disability?

No, that is stupid.

Why? You could say it belongs under the URM category.

A great rec from a teacher talking about how a student has never let a missing limb hold him back from any activities will certainly stand out.

At last! Some sense! Veteran consideration is huge.

Anonymous wrote:Eagle Scout or veteran

Eagle scout is impressive and a legitimate source of pride, but with over 50,000 new ones each year it is very limited as a hook for ivy-level schools.

https://nesa.org/become-an-eagle/eagle-award-history/

Eagle Scout or veteran

Anonymous wrote:So name some hooks that are not:
1. Athletics
2. Wealth and wealth related
3. URM

Go.

Fame
USAMO, Inspire, Intel or other highly selective academic contest

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So name some hooks that are not:
1. Athletics
2. Wealth and wealth related
3. URM

Go.

Physical disability?

No, that is stupid.

Anonymous wrote:So name some hooks that are not:
1. Athletics
2. Wealth and wealth related
3. URM

Go.

Physical disability?

So name some hooks that are not:
1. Athletics
2. Wealth and wealth related
3. URM

Go.

Anonymous wrote:I thought you all were against legacy admissions (3rd Gen in this case)?

This discussion is about whether Harvard and Yale made a mistake in admitting them holistically on non-academic criteria. The answer is no, they advance the cause and profile of those colleges in a way that benefits them immensely. Certainly more than some anonymous smart kid with 200 more SAT points.

Anonymous wrote:Funny that you think Yale had anything to do with his success. He is a classic case of someone whose background and connections would have made him successful in life whether or not he had gone to Yale. A first gen college student would have benefitted more from that spot.

Another entire bunch of points no one is arguing. The question is whether Yale made a mistake in admitting him. The answer is no.

Anonymous wrote:Are Hogg and Thunberg “successful activists?”

Yes. Extremely. Thunberg was Time's person of the year for god's sake. Get with the program.

And for the record this has nothing to do with agreeing with their politics and I think GWB was a terrible president. The question is was Yale right to accept him, and the answer is absolutely, yes, as he became a US president.

Anonymous wrote:Lol DCUM, you think that being an internationally known and successful activist, who likely has a future in politics or media, is less valuable to Harvard than 200 SAT points.

You are idiots!

And yes, that hold’s true for GW Bush’s admission to Yale. Despite his poor academics, he became a US president. Do you think he was a bad selectiofor admission?

the

I thought you all were against legacy admissions (3rd Gen in this case)? Funny that you think Yale had anything to do with his success. He is a classic case of someone whose background and connections would have made him successful in life whether or not he had gone to Yale. A first gen college student would have benefitted more from that spot.

Are Hogg and Thunberg “successful activists?” They are successful at becoming famous, I guess. What have either of them really changed? I guess Hogg did try to build a pillow company, but recently gave up on that, as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:field hockey is not a rich kid sport. We had a team at my high school which was the lowest income high school in the state.

there are very few rec field hockey teams for young kids. Learning and playing at a level to get recruited is a rich kid thing

No one plays field hockey where I am from till high school. Many play in college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:URM + full pay + legacy + fancy sport like fencing and Crew.

coupled with scouts and all honors/AP classes.

No one cares about scouts. Seriously. It isn’t getting your kid into an Ivy.

Well! Mine did with all the leadership skills he got from being an Eagle.