<p>So I was curious about whether there is an order of importance or significance for hooks: URM, Recruited Athlete, Arts Supplement, Legacy, 1st Generation, Poverty (I heard this is kind of a hook), and any others you guys can come up with or that I accidently forgot to list. If you guys could help me rank these hooks, that'd be greatly appreciated!
Also, what are some "anti-hooks." I heard that being Asian is one and was wondering if there were any others.
Thanks again!</p>
<p>Why does it matter? You can’t manufacture any of these on the fly. And someone can give you an answer, but it’s not like a 5% increase to your SAT score vs a 6.5% increase. If differs between schools, between years, etc. There are never two exactly equivalent people who differ only by one hook or another hook or no hook at all. What goes on inside those admissions discussions are exactly that. Discussions among human beings.</p>
<p>@NIGHTLOCK: If I may, my opinion of the Asian “anti-hook” is really the “anti-hook” that places them in the general applicant pool – those w/o significant “other” hooks but solely are applying based on their record. Most people are in this pool. The fact that some schools afford a significant # of slots to other sub-groups like you listed, and that coincidentally, Asians may populate those sub groups less, gives off the appearance that being Asian in and of itself, imposes a detrimental status. I don’t believe this, personally. The goal for Asian applicants to the very top schools is to distinguish oneself. The same advice that would be given to an “unhooked” Caucasian applicant or international applicant. </p>
<p>I agree with @donnaleighg, aside from submitting an arts supplement (which probably ranks last among the things you listed, except at an art or music school) an applicant cannot slant their application towards a hook, so what difference does it matter.</p>
<p>That said, I’ll play along. The answer is going to vary from college to college. For example, see: <a href=“http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-decline-of-legacy-admissions-at-yale/29338”>http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-decline-of-legacy-admissions-at-yale/29338</a>
“Low-income students receiving Pell Grants” is a ‘key phrase’ for URM’s. So, at Yale, being a URM would seem to trump being a legacy, but that IS NOT true for all colleges.</p>
<p>Being Asian could actually be a bit of a hook at some schools, I think. Many top applicants who are Asian are applying to Ivies and top universities. But not as much to top LACs, I think. Name recognition seems to be very important to parents of Asian applicants, and (just to give an example), schools like Swarthmore or Amherst or Middlebury are not well known to those parents and in their countries of origin.</p>
<p>Another example of something that is a bit of a hook at some schools, but not at others is gender. Males have a definite advantage in the LAC applicant pool, I think. Women apply in larger numbers, and schools often admit men with slightly lower qualifications compared to the average female applicant to keep the gender mix at the school fairly even. But it is the opposite at most STEM schools, women have a slight advantage in the application pool there.</p>
<p>Another “hook” at some schools is geography. I think even a top school takes a second look at an applicant from Alaska…</p>
<p>You can’t easily change many of these qualities about yourself (ethnic background, gender, where you live). But you can consider what types of schools you apply to based on your own qualities. Asian male? Look hard at LACs. Live in Minnesota? Look hard at some of the 2nd tier LACs on the East or West coast that would like some geographic diversity. Go against the flow (which is actually a pretty useful thing to do in other ways in the college application process, too). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>URMs are not automatically low income, and the population of students (or people in general) from low income backgrounds is not predominantly URM.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is odd that it is common to see suggestions that Asian applicants apply to colleges with few Asian students, but there is resistance to suggestions that white applicants may find suitable colleges where white students are not the majority or plurality.</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus: You are correct, URM’s are not automatically low-income, however many URM’s are from low-income families. If you read this NY Times article on the same subject, you will see that, at Yale, being a URM would seem to trump being a legacy – which is one point Jeffrey Brenzel was making, and that I was noting in my original post:
<a href=“Debating Legacy Admissions at Yale, and Elsewhere - The New York Times”>http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/legacy-2/</a>. Thanks for keeping me politically correct though.
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have seen several suggestions out here recently (this spring) for non-URM students to consider Howard, Spelman, and other historically black colleges. So I don’t think it is unusual.</p>
<p>In my view, the strongest cases are where the applicant possesses attributes that cause institutional forces within the college to advocate for that individual applicant, as opposed to where there is a preference for that type of applicant generally. The two hooks that attract such individual advocacy are the cases of the major development prospect and the recruited athlete. </p>
<p>Look at it this way. Assume you have three applicants to a school with a 10% admissions rate: a child of a major potential donor, a recruited athlete, and an economically disadvantaged URM. All three are academically well qualified.</p>
<p>The donor’s child and the recruited athlete will be accepted, because the development office and the athletic department will specifically advocate for those applicants. The economically disadvantaged URM will have a much greater than average chance of acceptance, but nothing near the 100% the other two have.</p>