<p>
</p>
<p>I was of the assumption that they make up an additional 20%. Daniel Golden suggested that the number with hooks is “no less than” 60%:</p>
<p><a href=“Poison Ivy”>Poison Ivy;
<p>I can see why the OP is asking the question. The Brits are not impressed either.</p>
<p>@tinnova, I like and agree with many of the things you said there, except for “financial management.” This is because it poses a problem given the fact that financial reports are not due to many colleges until after the early action and decision process has been well underway. Also, while I understand that there needs to be some of that financial consideration, its hard to imagine many of these schools blatantly lying about being “need blind.”</p>
<p>And I do believe that a lot of the college process is not transparent. Those who are on this thread trying to get into the minds of the adcoms that rejected my friend, are really grasping at straws, and cannot come up with a logical explanation for why he was rejected - partly because there is very little logic, and a whole lot of “feelings” in the admissions rooms.</p>
<p>@warriordaughter, How ironic - when did I say that my friend “keeps his head down and just does everything asked of him?” Where do you see that at all? You are making stereotypical assumptions about his personality based on those two facts!</p>
<p>He was on the contrary very active in his community, and school. He was a peer tutor, tutored at a homeless shelter, was a National Merit Finalist, active leader member of math and science teams, which were highly ranked in the city and state. In his free time, he volunteered restoring a local park, and participated in science research competitions. He even played basketball for a local team.</p>
<p>The only thing he lacked was a tear jerking life story, and honestly that is beyond his control. </p>
<p>The point is that even if you were to accept those tear-jerking individuals, and disadvantaged minorities it should still leave room for people like my friend in a place like Cornell. In fact, people with less compelling activities, life stories, and grades were accepted to the same major. The only explanation is that the adcoms were driven by the same subliminal prejudice you displayed, and chucked his application as soon as they read the race and SAT score. </p>
<p>The only person grasping at straws is you, jsmike. </p>
<p>It’s ironic that you are so obsessed with colleges that admit so many people you seem to consider inferior to your friend. Again–if you believe colleges should only admit on stats, apply only to those schools that do. They exist.</p>
<p>I am still wondering what your friend is doing now. (You don’t have to give specifics, obviously.) Of course we all hope (and assume) he has landed on his feet at another good university if he is truly as accomplished as you say.</p>
<p>@lookingforward, there are also a beautiful wealth of kids like my friend who are rejected based on very little logical thought or consideration. I can only speak from the examples I have seen, and most of the kids accepted to Cornell that year were the most insensitive, fake, and hollow people I could think of. Like I said, one student who cheated his way through Spanish was accepted to Cornell with nearly a full financial aid package (oh, he probably misrepresented some of his numbers because he could afford four years of private school at an even higher cost). </p>
<p>Another student, indicated her ethnicity as African on her Cornell application, because her father (of Asian descent) happened to be born in Africa while the family was on vacation. She knew there was no other way to get in based on her actual accomplishments and grades.</p>
<p>These may be anomalies, but two or three of these acceptances from each high school does NOT represent the beautiful wealth of kids you refer to. In fact, it shows just how biased the system has become.</p>
<p>@sally305, you want the thread to end, yet you continue to comment? </p>
<p>Oh, they exist? How about you give me some names, perhaps some in the Ivy League?</p>
<p>He goes to a mid-level large state school, the only one that offered him an affordable financial package. I would rather not specify the school, since you might go and find him there… but he has of course landed on his feet. There is only so far he can go with a degree from this college. I would say he has become slightly disheartened over the slew of Ivy rejections that he had to face.</p>
<p>He has essentially just become a normal kid, going to a normal school. And honestly, I don’t think he can go as far has his high school potential had suggested…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that’s nonsense. If he works hard, he can get accepted to an excellent grad school and go far.</p>
<p>^ Yes. It isn’t over. If he keeps on being the kid he has been up until now, he will be fine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Patently false.</p>
<p>DH went to a second tier state school; not the Flagship, nor the “second place” state school.This school is so lacking in prestige that I imagine you wouldn’t even consider it worthy of the time to look down your nose at it. He has gone on to find amazing success,not only in terms of professional and financial success, but more importantly, personal happiness as a loving husband, a wonderful father, and a good citizen in our community. What is more, most of the friends he had while in college have had similar positive experiences post grad and are all very close to this day. All but one I can think of never even went to grad school. </p>
<p>As a nurse, I work with many doctors who are not only at the top in their field here in Dallas, but are nationally or internationally recognized. Most of them went to “normal” state schools for undergrad.</p>
<p>The only thing which could hold your friend back would be his attitude.</p>
<p>OP hasn’t told us much about this friend. Not enough to see why this particular case is so poignant. A number of us are saying it isn’t “little logical thought or consideration.” But OP says it is.
Go figure. It’s young.
This kind of thing isn’t hard for a kid to shake. But it takes an open mind. </p>
<p>
It depends on how you define hook. For example, according to Cornell’s Class of 2017 profile at <a href=“http://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Profile2013-Freshmen.pdf”>http://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Profile2013-Freshmen.pdf</a> , 22% of the entering class are URMs, 16% are legacies, and 7% are recruited athletes for a total of under 45% (under because some fall into multiple categories, such as a legacy URM). I’d expect these to be the most common traditional hooks. If you also call things like overcoming a difficult background or being state+ ranked in something hooks, I can see how the total would exceed 50% and become the majority. </p>
<p>However, being a hook is not synonymous with being unqualified. For example, legacy applicants tend to have better academic stats and generally stronger applications than non-legacy applicants. Many would likely be admitted regardless of their legacy status. Similarly there are also plenty of highly qualified URMs, even though being a URM obviously gives an admissions boost. I expect everyone who is admitted is expected to be able to handle the coursework, with fits with the highly selective colleges we have been discussing having some of the highest graduation rates of any college in the United States. All of the top 20 colleges with the highest 6-year graduation rate (as listed in IPEDs) are selective private colleges with holistic admissions that have a good portion of the class being “hooks.” 5 of the 8 ivies have a 96%+ 6-year graduation rate. This is quite different from grad rates among unqualified hooks, such as the UConn basketball team having an 8% 6-year graduation rate a few years ago.</p>
<p>Yes…if he makes his life dependent on the degree, then a degree from any college will only take you “so far”. College =/= life in any way. </p>
<p>Get one fact straight: your life is worth what you think it is. Everyone’s version of success is different. One can go far in life with no schooling whatsoever; there are many who are successes in just about everyone’s opinion, while many others live a happy life, and are successful by their own definition.</p>
<p>It’s obvious that the OP thinks prestige=success, and that admissions processes are flawed. If they are, then the colleges that apply them are also flawed and not so great then…so why care so much about them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That makes sense. I am sure he’d be easy to find, since he’s probably the only smart, accomplished Asian kid at his university. {sarcasm}</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then he wasn’t Ivy material to begin with. Remember how they want students who show the potential to overcome adversity, demonstrate self-reliance, and push themselves despite not having everything always go their way? Maybe you should give the adcoms more credit than you have for seeing how “average” your friend really is.</p>
<p>The only reason you would be obsessed with top schools would be if your life’s ambition would be to brag “I went to — for college” and try to impress people.
Work while in college determines success, not the actual college attended. </p>
<p>To answer the original question: college acceptance is in no way a meritocracy by your definition: high SATs, grades, and nice sounding ECs etc… People who have these TEND to get into selective colleges, but these don’t warrant an automatic acceptance, because, as you said, admissions is based on “feelings” of officers. In my school, a student who seemed much more perfect than your friend was rejected at all the top schools applied to so far, while some applicants who were definitely less academically skilled (in just about every way possible) were accepted. </p>
<p>It seems to me the OP believes that prestigious college=automatic success, and therefore it is not fair that college acceptance is based entirely on his definition of academic success. Even if that were totally true, he could just remember: Life isn’t fair. Do your best and give it your all, and you will be fine. </p>
<p>It is simply a #s game. 3.95+ unweighted GPA + 98th percentile SAT and 98th percentile ACT + 8 APs + Strong ECs = 6 Ivy rejections. There are simply far too many qualified candidates… and if you lack a strong diversifying hook of some kind, it is like trying to win a lottery. </p>
<p>Congrats to those who did succeed…</p>
<p>Tell your friend to stop being so entitled. I’m sure he has gotten many scholarships to a number of great institutions. The point is, not everyone will go to an Ivy. In fact, most people won’t. 99% of people won’t. Honestly, especially as an Undergraduate, going to an Ivy just seems… ridiculous. </p>
<p>They are ■■■■■■■■ expensive, they are ■■■■■■■■ difficult and at the end of the day, having that name recognition isn’t going to help you get a job. People hire people that they know can do they job and that they can connect with. If you and a potential employer can connect over the fact that you two went to the same college, you already have a step up over the other guys. People love their alama maters, and they love people who go to their alama maters, and remembering said alama maters are great institutes of higher education. </p>
<p>You can tell your friend to stop being entitled. He didn’t get it; many people won’t. It’s not something to get upset about because you can’t do anything about it. Tell him to pick another university, maybe one that is offering him a scholarship, get a degree that will be of comparable merit and enjoy knowing he isn’t drowning in debt, he actually enjoyed college and that he has a stable and bright future ahead. The world is so much bigger than the Ivies. </p>
<p>Based on my own sample space of data points…lrrationality in admissions, may be to an extent.
But graduating from lower ranked school shutting the door to opportunities? Absolutely not.
Best case of favor I have seen is an early interview call for the grads of labeled colleges, but absolutely nothing beyond that - my sample space is limited to engineering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Legacy applicants may be stronger than non-legacy applicants, I really don’t know, but successful legacy applicants are definitely weaker than successful non-legacy applicants. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Research does not show that either. Both legacies and URMs are helped by grade inflation, and switching from hard majors to easy majors.</p>
<p>For me the moral of the story is simple: if you want to check for SES, look at the college; if you want to check for ability, look at the major.</p>
<p>Here is the Arcidiacono study:</p>
<p><a href=“http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/grades_4.0.pdf”>http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/grades_4.0.pdf</a></p>
<p>btw, an 8% 6-year graduation rate is a disgrace. If they want to have a minor league basketball team, so be it. Just don’t have them masquerade as students.</p>
<p>^How applicable is this study, based on data from one university, to other institutions with different characteristics?</p>
<p>Canuckguy, your comments are highly offensive. My URM daughter was just accepted to UPenn yesterday. Scores? 2150 SAT, 31 ACT. She’s also been accepted to every top LAC where she applied. Easy major? Nope - political science with a concentration in International Relations, plus a minor in French.<br>
We know she was accepted to many institutions where applicants with higher stats were rejected. Why? Accomplishments. Personality. Attitude. People with opinions such as yours come off as sour grapes and it comes through loud and clear.</p>