<p>Hi!
I am more of a reader than a writer, so this is my first post after learning a great deal from others on CC. Regarding "Hooks": Do most people actually understand the meaning of having a hook on their resume? I've recently observed on Chance threads students listing hook traits like "genuine interest in their school", "left-handed queer", and "...from Nebraska". With respect, a hook is not an afterthought. It is obvious, not generic. It grabs the Adcoms attention and won't let go. It's a talent or an experience with such profound uniqueness and/or depth, that even a bleary-eyed admissions reader will sit up and mark it with a sticky note.</p>
<p>What is the best, authentic Hook you have ever heard of (Nobel & Pulitzer aside)?</p>
<p>In my view, a characteristic isn’t a hook unless it meets two criteria:</p>
<ol>
<li> It must fill an institutional need of the school, and</li>
<li> There must be a system in place where somebody at the school will advocate for the applicant’s acceptance.</li>
</ol>
<p>Under these terms, the only real hooks are recruited athlete and development case.</p>
<p>Forget race and athletics. The biggest hook by far is being the child of the president or vice-president. I read an article on Al Gore’s son, Al Gore III, a year or two ago. He’s never done anything in his life but party. He had private tutors his entire life and then absolutely bombed the SAT. Even so, Harvard accepted him. While at Harvard, he did nothing but party. He was even arrested for marijuana possession there, which is tough to do given the amount of dope floating around universities. He was arrested again in California for the same thing, but this time he had a pharmacy of prescription drugs as well. The Bushes got into Yale even though they are stupid, Chelsea Clinton went to Stanford, etc. I suppose being the child of a major donor at a school has the same impact.</p>
<p>^ She still could very well be very smart. Just because hooked candidates have an easier time with admission at top schools does not necessarily mean that they wouldn’t have gotten in without the hook.</p>
<p>Biggest hook is being a celebrity/uber developmental.</p>
<p>SlitheyTove, that was a nice article to read. But gosh darnit, Harvard does not give full scholarships; only financial aid. The media always gets that tidbit wrong.</p>
<p>aside from all the stuff you might have been born with, I’d say the biggest hooks are I_O gold medals, D1 recruited athlete, and Intel/Siemens winner.</p>
<p>I think the whole concept of hooks is WAY over emphasized on this website. Hooks are not official things. There is no “official” types of hooks. The “hook” concept is invented (I believe in this website?) to explain an advantage that an applicant may have. Every single person does not have an advantage. Similarly, everyone does not have a so-called “hook.” Hooks are not essential to being successful and being accepted. Obviously though, being a URM or a recruited athlete will help. The concept of hook was made up to explain this advantage. It is by no mean required or even expected that most candidates will have a huge advantage to the “hook” level.</p>