Hooked vs. Unhooked

<p>Hooks. Everyone wants one, but only some have them. I, unfortunately, do not have one, so I can't help feeling a bit down about this coming Wednesday. I currently believe hooks represent that little push that could send an applicant into the accepted range... but will there be a time in the future when only hooked applicants are accepted? Because as time goes on, there will be more legacies out there... more URM legacies, even.... and more athletes. </p>

<p>:(</p>

<p>(I have nothing against you hooks out there!)</p>

<p>Of all the hooks, legacy is the one that frustrates me the most. If you’re an athlete, you have a skill Yale desires. If you’re a URM, you will bring diversity that Yale seeks.</p>

<p>But if you’re a legacy, what exactly is it that you bring to the table (other than more donations)?</p>

<p><a href=“other%20than%20more%20donations”>quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This. This is the only reason it’s a hook.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s a pretty involved question. If only hooked applicants are accepted, then “hooks” won’t really be “hooks” in the traditional sense of the term we have today. The Time article on everyone becoming a mixed “ethnicity” by the year 2050 also comes to mind.</p>

<p>Hooks for legacies, and hooks for first generations.
Sucks to not be in one of the extremes :(</p>

<p>The first generation hook will probably be very uncommon after a while. And legacy could become so common that accepting a majority of legacy applicants would compromise the quality of the student body.</p>

<p><a href=“other%20than%20more%20donations”>quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you accept me Yale, you can take a chunk out my paycheck for the rest of my life. Just take me over a legacy.</p>

<p>It’s true that statistically, legacy applicants and children of Yale faculty are admitted at twice the normal rate. But these kids also are statistically much stronger than the average Yale applicant.</p>

<p>However, legacy isn’t quite the hook that you all feel it is. Yale sends a letter out to all alumni who have kids of college application age telling them basically, not to get your hopes up – due to the tremendously competitive pool these days and frankly, the huge number of legacy applicants. It’s not as if we alumni, both college and grad school, are having less kids.</p>

<p>They do this to soothe any potential hurt feelings and diminished loyalty to mother Yale. </p>

<p>My oldest in an eighth grader. All “A” student, super athlete and other ECs. Does she seem like a potential Yalie? Sure. But I’ll be getting one of those letters in 3 years and I won’t be surprised or unduly disappointed (I hope) if Yale rejects her. I’m just realistic about the numbers.</p>

<p>I think they also like the idea that legacy kids have sort of been indoctrinated, as it were, in the all-mysterious ways of Yale.</p>

<p>I also think that there is a higher correlation between being accepted at Yale and attending for legacies. (not based in fact, just intuition)</p>

<p>Out of all anti-hooks, being a URM annoys me the most. It’s pretty much that Asians are too smart and competitive so it’s harder for us to get in.</p>

<p>^How is being a URM an anti hook? Being Asian makes admission so much tougher for us because there are so many excellent applicants but only a limited number of seats. It sucks. :(</p>

<p>I think he meant ORM</p>

<p>What exactly are the different hooks? Btw, I’m a Native American but I’m not sure I should put it on my app… Will it help?</p>

<p>As I understand it, if you are a Native American, they want to see that you are registered with your tribe, or other indication that it is a significant part of your identity; it’s not enough that your great-great grandmother was (supposedly) half Cherokee.</p>

<p>But yes, if you are in fact a Native American it will help significantly.</p>

<p>oops sorry for the confusion. i meant ORM.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think it’d be interesting to see statistics comparing the average nonlegacy applicant and the average legacy applicant on GPA, STA, etc. My guess is, like yours, that the legacy applicant pool is somewhat stronger statistically (being more affluent in general). But to what degree are the legacy applicants stronger than the nonlegacys? I’m not sure the comparative strength of the legacy applicants fully negates their high admittance rate.</p>

<p>Honestly, I think the animosity towards legacies is quite humorous. I think the reason why legacies have a higher admit rate is because Yale wants people that want to go to Yale. What shocks me is the number of people on this forum who applied early to Yale, but have also applied to many other schools including Harvard. The admissions officers know that a legacy will much more likely go to Yale rather than another qualified candidate that couldn’t care if it were Princeton, Columbia, or Yale. Also, Yale can trust the quality of legacies as they were raised by alums of their own school. They know the values that these children are raised and find them very desirable. </p>

<p>Yes, I am biased as a legacy, but I feel that even without legacy I would have a good chance of getting in.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yale is not terribly concerned about this factor. They know that the majority of kids who apply are genuinely interested in attending. (And that’s the case even of they’re applying to other schools.) And though I believe all schools are concerned with yield to a degree, it’s not a major concern for the biggest of the big boys.</p>

<p>Applying SCEA shows quite a bit more interest than the average applicant also.</p>

1 Like