<p>jennycriag - </p>
<p>As I said in post #21, I’m not saying there’s anythig sinister going on, but perhaps the policy suggests a sch that is too conserv/rigid for us. Also the absence of any explanation raises questions re: responsiveness in general.</p>
<p>rbupe-</p>
<p>Adcom#1 suggested that, rather than wait in the admssions reception area, I might prefer to get a cup of coffee in the dining room while she interviewed D.</p>
<hr>
<p>I accept that some poster think adcom2’s conduct was insignif (or a figment of my imagin). But even if the incident is a molehill, w/ lots of sch where D could have a good exp, a single unpleasant incident will likely be sufficient to keep D from even applying.</p>