<p>I've been seeing the word and I know vaguely that it is something that stands out on an application, but what is it really?</p>
<p>Usually it refers to an under-represented minority (URM) or sports. But it could be something like winning the big national science award or being a fabulous oboe player.</p>
<p>It can also be anything else that makes a person stand out–as you thought.</p>
<p>I’d define it a little more narrowly as a qualification or characteristic that categorically gives its holders a decisive advantage in admissions. The three most frequently mentioned examples are recruited athlete (not just accomplished in sports, but someone a coach at the college really wants and will push to get), under-represented minority (URM), and legacy. Another possible category is “development admit,” someone from an extremely wealthy and philanthropically inclined family, of whom the admissions office may be especially solicitous at the request of the development office and top administrators. </p>
<p>There are many characteristics and accomplishments that might “stand out” in your application—winner of various prizes and competitions, for example—that don’t count as “hooks” insofar as they do not operate regularly and systematically to advantage their holders in the admissions process; or because, even if they confer some advantage, they just do not carry all that much weight. Being a fabulous oboe player is a great accomplishment, and it will gain the same kind of recognition that other fabulous ECs get; but when it comes to getting into Harvard, it’s doesn’t give you nearly the kind of advantage that being a recruited athlete, URM, or legacy does.</p>
<p>bclintock:</p>
<p>Excellent explanation. I’m not sure I agree that a legacy hook is more valuable than being the winner of national competitions or having exceptional music ability. Legacy’s are usually from advantaged backgrounds with respect to exceptional opportunities and I think the adcoms expect much from them. I know that Yale clearly states that legacy applicants are stronger than the average applicant and do better than even score matched applicants once they have matriculated. I doubt the same would be said of recruited athletes and URMs. The admissions advantage attributable to legacy status is modest at the most selective schools.</p>
<p>Agree with bclintonk.</p>
<p>One simple way to look at it is that a hook is an attribute of the applicant that is of benefit to the school (URM, recruted athete, developmental admit, etc). </p>
<p>People often confuse hooks and ECs. The difference is that an EC is usually something that you do. A hook is something that you ARE - you have some status or attribute that the university specifically desires.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’ve been round and round on this on CC, but the statistics I’ve seen indicate that legacy status is a huge advantage. No doubt Yale legacy applicants are stronger than Yale applicants as a whole, but that’s not the point. The point is that in addition to an enormous number of applicants who ultimately aren’t competitive, Yale also gets a very large number of applicants who are extremely well qualified by its own standards. But once you’re in that group of extremely well-qualified applicants, legacies have a substantial advantage—some studies say as much as a 2-to-1 advantage—over non-legacies. That doesn’t mean unqualified legacies get in, but Yale’s self-acknowledged policy of favoring legacies is not just window-dressing, either. The legacy advantage is a substantial, palpable, systematic, and statistically meaningful advantage. That makes it a “hook.”</p>
<p>It’s interesting to hear that Yale thinks its legacies do better once they’re enrolled than statistically-matched non-legacies. I’ve never heard that argument before, and I suspect it’s an argument Yale would be reluctant to broadcast too widely. I could imagine a lot of reasons for that being the case, not least that legacies are less likely to undergo the kind of cultural disorientation that often accompanies starting school in an unfamiliar place, which could have damaging academic implications, especially in the first year or two of college. And I suppose that could be an affirmative argument in favor of a legacy preference. But that also doesn’t undercut the significance of the legacy advantage that does exist in college admissions. Instead, it’s a kind of rationale for it. Though frankly, given grade inflation and the extremely low failure rate at schools like Yale, it strikes me as a pretty weak rationale. Pretty much everyone who’s admitted succeeds at a pretty high level. The trick is to get in, and there legacies have a clear inside track.</p>
<p>something I didn’t have :(</p>
<p>Note that what is and is not a hook depends on the school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being a recruited athlete is more of something you do. Examples of hooks that you are would be URM or legacy, if such factors are hooks at the given school.</p>
<p>Thanks for the response! The legacy issue begs the question… what is considered legacy? My uncle went to Harvard for graduate school, does this make me a legacy or is it only parents and grandparents?</p>
<p>^^Who gets legacy status varies by school. But in the case of Harvard they make it clear that only parents count. Your uncle or grandparents having attended won’t help. Also Harvard, unlike say Stanford, further restricts legacy to those whose parent went to Harvard for undergrad. So if your dad went to say Harvard Law School but not Harvard Coillege you would not get legacy consideration.</p>