<p>Or maybe I should ask: After the students with a hook are admitted, what percentage of places are still open?</p>
<p>If you mean HYP then about 2/3 of the class is for the “normal” high-achievers.</p>
<p>Orly? If that’s true, that’s very comforting.</p>
<p>
It hadn’t occurred to me that it would be different at different levels. Good point.</p>
<p>Let’s break it down to: 1) HYP 2) Top 40 toughest colleges to get into 3) everyone else</p>
<p>bump </p>
<p>Surprised I haven’t heard more on this so far.</p>
<p>[Why</a> are droves of unqualified, unprepared kids getting into our top colleges? Because their dads are alumni | Washington Monthly | Find Articles at BNET](<a href=“http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n6_v23/ai_10844045/]Why”>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n6_v23/ai_10844045/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a difficult question because there is no universally accepted criteria for what a “hook” is.</p>
<p>I think of a hook as any factor that gets a student admitted who would not be qualified by merit (grades, scores, ECs, reccs). Hooks by this definition could be recruited athletes, URMs, legacies, children of big donors, or students with political/social/business connections.</p>
<p>Several years ago I heard about a study that found that at the most selective colleges, about 15% of the freshman class did not meet the colleges’ stated qualifications for admissions. Of that group, the majority were kids with cash or connections.</p>
<p>LasMa:** you’re quoting a 1991 article** that frankly, has little to do with the current scene. More recent studies have concluded that indeed, legacy kids at Y and H do get admitted at a higher rate but essentially because as a group, their metrics are higher than the non-legacy pool. This substantially differs from the point of the 1991 article which cited stats of 1981-1988.</p>
<p>I know for a fact that Yale alumni were sent “primer” letters noting that their kids would face crushing odds due to the enormous uptake of quality applicants to Yale and to not expect much of an advantage given their legacy status. Nonetheless, they still get admitted at a higher rate and their academic performance outpaces the non-legacies.</p>
<p>Gotta remember this lasma: since the eighties, Y and H have seen a doubling of applicants.</p>
<p>And I dispute your judgment on hooks being something that admits someone besides merit. You define merit as only being acadmic success. Fine, if you want to go to a European school or a public state college. For colleges like Y and H, their definition of “merit” entails non-quantifiables such as athletic excellence, URM status and others. By implication, your statements say that a top athlete with lesser scores but is still academically qualified is not as deserving as a 2400 SAT science genius. I counter that it’s up to Yale and Harvard to choose how many of each they want – as both can contribute to the community and both are deserving. To say that 15% “did not meet academic qualifications” is nuts given the published stats of matriculating students at H & Y. You’re implying that the lower 15th percentile are raving idiots. That’s just not so in my experience. Plus, none of the top colleges have “minimums” posted.</p>
<p>Regarding “cash” connected kids (relatives of major donors ($2M plus)) – as long as they meet a threshold for academic performance, I support these admits 100%. The $ tied to them made it and continues to make possible my alma mater’s very aggressive and generous FinAid program. Would I hand over a slot to a kid who can generate millions so I can scour rural and urban high schools for diamonds in the rough and get them to attend on full FinAid? You betcha.</p>
<p>Final note: I was admitted during the time frame covered in the article. I was not a legacy, had SATs in the 30th percentile only, and I’m Chinese. I was admitted to all the schools I applied (2 ivies and 4 top engineering schools). Certainly there were legacies around me – but I don’t recall meeting anyone “unqualified” or “undeserving”.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^</p>
<p>There are alot more than 15% of hooked kids, therefore most hooked kids DO meet the standards of the schools.</p>
<p>Actually, T26E4, I’m quoting a 2007 article about a 2003 study.</p>
<p>Article: [At</a> the elite colleges - dim white kids - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/28/at_the_elite_colleges___dim_white_kids/?page=1]At”>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/28/at_the_elite_colleges___dim_white_kids/?page=1)</p>
<p>Study: <a href=“http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf[/url]”>http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf</a></p>
<p>GA2012MOM: The 15% refers to students who do not meet the colleges’ own academic standards. By definition, these students did not get admitted based on merit. Undoubtedly, there are hooked students who are academically qualified. I should have been clearer: I have no idea how many hooked, qualified students are admitted.</p>
<p>OP - Little hook? Big hook? Coincidental hook? I don’t see how your question gets answered in any meaningful way. Besides, it’s much more likely that a “qualified” student would get rejected simply because the school simply wasn’t looking for that sort of applicant that year.</p>
<p>^^I see what you mean that this is a little trickier than I thought at first. OTOH I’m OK with LasMa’s definition: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that for our purposes we’ll just go with “abut 25% to 40%” as a working definition. This means that 60% to 75% of the slots will be open after the hooks are let in. I’m not sure how much difference it will make but if we’re considering a college and my son’s scores come in around the 25%ile mark we can forget it, no matter how great the essays and subjective stuff are.</p>