@Earnedit Thanks for keeping an open mind in this discussion. I hope that your last statement was meant sincerely rather than as a sarcasm - it’s hard to tell in a written speech. I’m sure racism is well and alive - we see daily signs of it in our public space and private spheres of life. My personal experience is that many BS are sheltered environments designed to discourage and uproot such views. Anecdotally, my daughter’s close friend, an AA boy from NYC, was repeatedly discouraged at his school from applying to a top BS because he “wouldn’t be able to handle the academics.” Well, not only is he handling it beautifully, but he was voted a class representative by his new BS classmates. I may be wrong, but I think that we’re raising a generation of very differently minded young people than what we’re used to, and we need to give them credit for that. I myself have been called on the carpet by my 12- and 15-year olds for saying thoughtless stuff that I don’t realize is judgmental and offensive when it comes to people’s shape, size, looks, clothing, ancestry, ethnicity, age, background, you name it. Some may find this annoying or restrictive and denounce it as PC, but I think that it keeps our feet to the fire and helps us recognize and fight implicit biases and become better, kinder, more accepting, and considerate individuals. I can’t count how many times since she started BS my kid has brought up ‘empathy’ in conversations with us and with her former classmates back here. It’s THE topic at her school and, frankly, the only way forward if we’re to evolve as a human race.
I disagree. A hook is what catches attention. In admission, it is often said what a school strongly needs from applicants. It doesn’t have to be positive and it doesn’t have to be earned. If a school needs URM students to boost it’s racial (regardless of socio-economical) diversity so strongly that it will accept a URM student from an affluent family yet with significantly low qualification, why that not be a hook?
^Totally buying in to the “myth”!
Where is there any evidence of
happening in real life?
I don’t have any. In fact, every single affluent URM family I personally know has only highly qualified children for admission purpose without considering their race.
But that wasn’t my point. My point is that I think URM is a hook regardless of circumstance. And that a hook doesn’t have to be
Sigh I just realized that I don’t know any child from a reasonably well off family but not highly qualified for admission, regardless of race.
My friend’s son applied SCEA to Yale. His son’s girlfriend is an URM. He was told to use the regular Naviance data to look at his chances. She was told not to use the Naviance data regading her GPA and SATs that the majority of kids in the senior class use but different data points for URMs. The SAT scores and GPA were less than the “regular” data sets for non URMs. ? Less qualified. This scenario would suggest “yes.” This does not speak to whether URMs getting preferential treatment to ensure diversity, or affirmative action isn’t a good thing. But to the question as to “as qualified,” some may be, but the majority, probably not. BTW she got in and he didn’t with much higher SATs, and grades. You could make a case that she had better ECs and or essays. But I have to tell you–he had all the right stuff as well.
Someone posted the above link in a different thread discussing the reverse discrimination against Asians at some schools. But there is a good point in that data - and that is the URMs are not really competing with the non-URMs - they are in a separate pool, so they have little bearing on non URM acceptances. But generally the ‘hooked’ pools will have a higher acceptance rate
Just like athletes, legacies, development cases and plain old regular kids, etc, there will be some super qualified, above avg kids in those pools that get accepted and some kids that fall below avg.
Maybe the others are as qualified as well. The school admitted her. Her grades and study habits will keep her there.
Other than that race is being considered in admission (hence URM a hook), we cannot draw conclusions about any individual applicant. The holistic review makes it difficult for non-AOs to know exactly what factor or what combination of factors got someone in. That being said, URM is considered a strong hook depending on how underrepresented a certain group is. For example, it is said that in Ivy League colleges African American boys are very underrepresented and therefore an AA boy with good qualifications would easily “beat” say an Asian boy (a stereotypical ORM)with about the same qualifications. Of course, no two snowflakes are exactly the same, so it seems forever a mystery exactly why this particular AA boy is admitted and why that particular Asian boy is not.
@Earnedit good for you for raising this very valid point! I do not have an URM child, but I will admit that I have heard parents comment that “the only reason so and so got in was because he or she is part of a minority ethnic group” “or he or she only got there because they need him or her on the sports team”, etc. and you are absolutely correct in worrying that such statements and the like will effect the perception of the academic abilities of URM students by non-URM students, as well as toy with the mindset of URM students. I believe this is also true of super star athletes. Many of them have to battle the misconception held by others that they aren’t smart enough for the institution and but for their athletic ability they wouldn’t be there. Unfortunately, I’m not sure there is an easy fix to this problem but highlighting the issue and not sitting silent is definitely a great move! I support your thinking and your comments 100%. Best of luck to your son!
I think I would both a agree and disagree with @Earnedit. It is true that by telling a child that they only got in because they are a URM can mess with a kids mindset. Just because a kid is a URM doesn’t make them any less qualified than if they were white. That said, the boarding school world isn’t fair. Let’s say that there is a kid from North Dakota and a kid from Connecticut. The kid from North Dakota is African American and the kid from Connecticut is white. Say that they have the exact same stats, test scores, ec’s, recs, and interviews (obviously not realistic but just go with me) than the school might consider the URM from and under represented state over the over represented race from an over represented state. Boarding schools these days want to be able to build themselves into diverse communities. In doing this, being a URM can be a hook. It it unfortunate? Yes. But everything in the boarding school world isn’t always fair. It is a bummer and so I can definitely see both viewpoints.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
While I try to be as nice and polite as possible, when I said that Affirmative Action is not to be discussed in this thread, one should not assume than my statement is a suggestion or should be perceived as optional. 5 posts deleted.
During parents weekend last fall one of DD’s instructors (instrument and not academic) literally asked us if DD was academically inclined as he knew she was an accomplished athlete in her sport. So the “plague” of any of the supposed hooks can follow students.
In D1 colleges, many of the recruited athletes are admitted based on a different set of academic criteria (as mentioned in the article someone linked upthread), so in that case it is not uncommon for recruited athletes to be “less” academic than the general student body.
I completely agree. To that point I’d like to share an excerpt from an address made by PA head of school John Palfrey at the All School Meeting held on May 9, 2014; in this address Mr. Palfrey speaks directly to the issue of the factors which go into admissions decisions:
*"Admissions decisions, or decisions about hiring faculty members even, do not evolve from a single calculation. Sometimes I fear that we get it wrong: we talk in terms of absolutes, each of which is equally untrue. A Post-Graduate is here to play a sport. A Lower is here because her father went here. A Junior is here because he plays the oboe. This is nonsense. No Admissions Officer, no Dean of Faculty thinks in such reductive and simplistic means — not here and not at any college I know of.
http://www.old.phillipian.net/articles/2014/05/08/palfrey-addresses-community-struggle-race
Did you know that, in reality, the kids at boarding school who have to prove their “right to be there” are the “fac brats”? the local day students? the multi-generational legacies? the Finance and Tech Bazillonaires’ kids? (If you are dubious, look at Shamus Khan’s excellent book, “Privilege”, about the meritocracy of St. Paul’s where kids look down on many of the rich legacies who are perceived as not having “earned” their rightful positions at the school.) The audience that matters on this issue are not the parents on this forum who lumped ethnicity in with other “hooks”, but the kids in your son’s class next year. And, no, they aren’t going to make assumptions about your son because of his ethnicity. And, no, their parents really aren’t telling them that they’ll be going to school with “unqualified” black kids. Your son’s abilities will be readily evident the moment he starts interacting with his peers.
But, that doesn’t mean that kids live in a vaccuum and are ignorant to the world of affirmative action or recruited athletes or their friends’ whose names are on the buildings or whose parents are major celebrities. The kids understand that everyone has to qualify for the admissions lottery, but some kids get more tickets than others. Such is life.
I have a kid who is hooked. She is female in a STEM field where women are very underrepresented, and is applying to grad schools. She has definitely gotten admissions to schools where she wouldn’t have if she were unhooked. But are they tippy top schools? No, because her GPA isn’t super high. Her hook will only take her so far. Are they schools where it appears she can do the work and reach her goal of earning a doctorate? It appears that they are. I don’t worry about it. She has already had plenty of situations where men have ignored her input, insulted her, hit on her, or assumed she was dumb. Unfortunately that probably won’t stop. Also. she might not pick the most prestigious program she got into. So the hook opens doors, but she will still choose what works best for her.
So… your kid’s hook isn’t so different than the others. We see athlete parents out here complaining about the same thing you are – that people undervalue their kids’ academic accomplishments.
In the end, the kid has to do the work to get the degree. Schools try not to let in kids that aren’t capable of that. Don’t be thin skinned about admissions results. And if your kid is up to the academic challenge, no one else will think anything but that he’s got talent.
Every kid admitted clears the bar for what he or she needs to succeed at that school in all respects.
A kid with high SSAT scores is not more qualified; he has higher scores. He has cleared the bar by more in that respect.
Each kid brings something to the community. Sometimes, it’s obvious what that is - sometimes it’s not.
Many colleges regularly assess how various groups, such as athletes, URM are faring in order to make sure they are being well served and that admissions policies are having the intended effect. The goal isn’t to get them in the door, it’s to get them out with a degree at the other end.
There is nothing like applying to selective schools (prep or college ) to make a parent wish the kid they adore had some attribute that would make him or her a slam dunk. Resist the temptation to view every other kid as s competitor, and one with an edge. It’s toxic!
Being a URM very well may be a hook at some schools and other schools they are not. Just like coming from a URS (state). Under represented means that it is not something that is commonly seen, it makes you unique. It is what it is. However, like someone previously mentioned, I believe all admitted students are qualified no matter what their “hooks” are.
Thank you, @Gardenstategal, for a most eloquent and truly enlightened take on these issues. You could not be more correct. And @queenmother is absolutely right on, as well. Bravo!
Most of the discussion I see on the subject of hooks starts from one basic and fallacious notion–that boarding schools are looking to fill a class with the applicants who have the highest GPAs and SSAT scores. Wrong! You may wish it were that way, but it’s not. Of course, there are, in fact, numerical cutoffs for grades and scores–but once those cutoffs are met, the game becomes significantly more complex.
By the way, academic achievement has never been the be-all and end-all for these institutions. Here’s what Shamus Khan has to say in Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul’s School: “Though we academics highly value grades and academic excellence, we must not forget that such a baseline for achievement is not universally shared. Indeed, it is not what is instilled among the practices of the elite.” (182) And, “the ‘ideal’ of St. Paul’s is not a scholastic one; it is relational.” (71)
Whoa, imagine that! Can it be that most of us thoroughly misconceive what these schools are all about?
In any event, my comments here apply only to highly competitive boarding schools that employ a holistic approach to admissions. But even among those schools it’s hard to generalize about the process. Different schools prefer different students, which is why Top School “X” will often admit applicants that Top School “Y” will deny–and vice versa.
The concept of hooks is essentially a convenient shorthand employed by applicants to privilege some admissions assets–usually high grades and test scores–over others. A more thorough analysis of hooks, however, would point up the inherent weakness of the concept in actual practice. Ultimately, in the real world of admissions, it turns out that a hook is merely whatever the committee liked about an applicant that resulted in a decision to admit. Like beauty, hooks are in the eye of the beholder (ouch!).
I recall sitting in on the financial aid presentation at a boarding school open house several years back. The director of financial aid was admirably frank in his comments: “The chances of your child gaining admission to this school are directly related to your ability to pay.” Hmmm, ability to pay sounds like what some people would call a hook, no? Unless a school can afford to subsidize 100% of the cost of educating every student, a family’s ability to pay is unavoidably going to be an element in the admissions calculus–all claims to need blindness notwithstanding. (And, if there were such a school–where every admitted student attended tuition-free–I can imagine that this school, in its ongoing efforts to build a truly diverse student body, would create an admission category for the children of billionaires, since including a percentage of their children in the class would no doubt “enrich” the mix!)
Elite schools have a very clear idea of what they aim to achieve in putting together a class. After assuring financial solvency, they are intent on creating the most enriching educational experience possible, period. And today that means, among other things, bringing together as diverse a student body as possible. Race, ethnicity, nationality, class, income level, athletic prowess, special talent, prior relationship to the school, and extraordinary academic ability are all factors to be considered. You can check the stats: the most selective schools–the schools that theoretically can fill a class with whomever they want–are the most diverse. Diversity doesn’t compromise these schools; indeed, it’s one of the main factors that makes them so good.
It’s counterproductive to think that a school seeks and values some classes of applicants over others. If the question is, What is school “Z” looking for in applicants?–then the answer is simple: it is looking for the many and varied things it finds in the applicants it admits. Every admitted applicant is as sought after and valued as every other. That doesn’t mean that the school isn’t making distinctions among applicants–it certainly is, which is why there are three categories of decision: admit, deny, and waitlist. But each admitted applicant is unique and brings a different combination of assets to the table–and each makes a correspondingly unique contribution to the strength of the student body. Thus, the “most qualified” applicants are, by definition, precisely those applicants that the school admits. There simply is no other overarching standard.
I’ll say it again: There is one and only one measure of your strength as an applicant to a given school–your admission decision. As I suggested above, how a particular applicant is valued will vary from school to school, depending on the sort of community it wishes to create. We, as parents, can attempt to discern what a school values in applicants, but we are in no position to say that the school “discriminates” or makes unfair allowances for some groups, as a school has the right to define its own mission. While the process may be confoundingly opaque to us, that doesn’t mean that a school is somehow unjustified in selecting the particular applicants that it wants. Such is the nature of holistic admissions.
Simply put, there are no hooks. Each applicant is evaluated on whatever basis the school chooses to use, and that will vary from applicant to applicant. Thus, it doesn’t make sense to say that a school admits “hooked” applicants who are “less qualified.” All admitted students are qualified, or they wouldn’t be admitted. There is only one absolute mark of qualification: admittance on March 10.
And to suggest that one particular group–say, athletes–is less qualified is really wrongheaded. It would seem that athletes, who often possess a strong competitive drive and the team-tested ability to work closely with others, have a lot to contribute to a school community and, hence, are particularly attractive applicants–or not, as each school values athleticism in its own way.
But the simplistic assumption that the group with the highest grades and scores is destined to make a greater contribution to a school and to society than the (perhaps) lower-scoring athletes is just wrong. Indeed, studies have shown that athletes as a whole go on to attain higher positions in business and have higher incomes than non-athletes–and are, hence, in a better position to make major donations to their alma mater. Just as there is no single standard for evaluating every applicant, there is no single standard for evaluating outcomes.
In fact, one could just as easily say that elite boarding schools are primarily looking for top athletes–but they’ll lower their standards for a percentage of non-athletic kids with sufficiently high grades and scores. Sounds ridiculous, right? In fact, it’s just as ridiculous as saying that schools lower their standards for athletes or any other group.