<p>Many students and parents have asked about how alumni evaluate students during their interviews. I think that the below link to a Yale newsletter for their alumni interviewers describes well the evaluation process and gives good examples of how students are evaluated. Even though this is info about Yale, it also reflects how Harvard alumni interviewers view candidates, and how Harvard's adcoms use the reports.</p>
<p>Thanks to Dotty for posting this link originally: *</p>
<p>Northstarmom: Thank you for the link!</p>
<p>also</p>
<p>Am I the only one who found that really depressing? They're totally going to reject me. I just know it. Waaaaahhh, why do other people have to be better qualified than I am?
(Excuse the irritating self-pity. It's three in the morning and I'm tired and whiny.)</p>
<p>In the long run, we're all dead :-/</p>
<p>nope, youre not the only one, kat. my academics are abt avg, and i was holding on to a hope tht my sat2s (800,790,770) and ecs would help tht out...but now it seems i must reconsider the paradigm...after that, i hope ill get into bu!</p>
<br>
<p>In the long run, we're all dead :-/ that quote is more telling about keynes' views on the sustainability of intervention than anything else.</p>
<br>
<p>I assume dotty got the Yale ASC links from one of my numerous postings with references to them over the last two years. </p>
<p>Similar material can be found at the Princeton alumni site. This is not rocket science. There isn't a word of this alleged "insider" info that isn't rather standard, common-sensical stuff.</p>
<p>"There isn't a word of this alleged "insider" info that isn't rather standard, common-sensical stuff."</p>
<p>Naw, not true, even to some inexperienced alumni interviewers who after interviewing a charming, but not intellectually deep, student with high stats stupidly assure the student that s/he is a definite admit.</p>
<p>And think about the many people who post on CC and similar sites who are convinced that as long as they have high stats and "the right" ECs, they are destined for HPYS. They same folks seem to be convinced that interviews are a waste of time for allegedly containing no valuable information since of course everything important is contained in the application....</p>
<p>No matter how good your interview goes though, you have to note that although an alumni interviewer may have given you a perfect 9/9, if they didn't write a sufficient report detailing what was so great about the applicant, Yale (or some other respective institution) tends to re-grade the applicant. I think that it is a bit unfair that the applicant should be penalized on account of the alumnus not having the time/energy to write a decent report. Although we are all thankful for having alumni who are willing to devote their time interviewing prospective students, I think it's a bit unfair that some students get the added advantage of a "better" interview(er).</p>
<p>This is an example from the Yale newsletter of the kind of applicant that many interviewers and posters mistakenly would think would be a definite admit. Many candidates who have such interviews would think they did fine because they think that as long as they aren't rude, that's all the interviewer cares about.</p>
<p>"Gavin has taken the most rigorous classes that his school has to offer and earned a 96 average, placing him near the top of his class at a strong private school. Additionally, he has achieved a combined score of 1580 on his SAT and marks between 760 and 800 on each of his SAT II subject exams.</p>
<p>He works as an Assistant Editor with the Yearbook; is Co-Captain of the competitive Quiz Bowl team; and has some scattered involvement volunteering through his church and with a few other school clubs and organizations. </p>
<p>His essays about the Quiz Bowl team and his grandfather are well constructed, but reveal very little depth of thought. His recommendations laud his passion for learning, his focus and his thorough work in every endeavor. One teacher calls him, among the most intelligent students Ive ever had, and both refer implicitly to his quiet leadership.</p>
<p>The ASC report shares that the conversation was, well below the level of most of my 15-20 interviews over a number of years. Though Gavin indulged direct questions with direct answers, there was little
excitement or passion expressed about any current or future interests. </p>
<p>While acknowledging that nerves might have accounted for some of the candidates social awkwardness, the interviewer cites a number of efforts to engage Gavin in different arenas that resulted in little depth or elaboration.</p>
<p>Aside from Gavins strong academic credentials, nothing else in his application separates him from the bulk of our applicant pool. The ASC report is helpful in this case because it confirms the area admissions
officers conclusion that Gavin is not a strong candidate for Yale."</p>
<p>As I said earlier: standard, common-sensical stuff.</p>
<p>"
No matter how good your interview goes though, you have to note that although an alumni interviewer may have given you a perfect 9/9, if they didn't write a sufficient report detailing what was so great about the applicant, Yale (or some other respective institution) tends to re-grade the applicant. "</p>
<p>The same thing applies to students' recommendations. If the GC and teachers don't document appropriately the students' attributes, deserving students aren't likely to get accepted.</p>
<p>... particularly when admissions officers can check back in the files and see the same stock phrases in letters written by the same counselor last year and the year before. ("...the most brilliant student I have ever had the privilege to teach..." blahblahblah.)</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity, NSM, how much thought do you as an interviewer put into your interview write-ups? How long are they, what do you tend to comment on, etc.? And do you know if this is typical amongst interviewers or if you are an anomaly for whatever reason?</p>
<p>I put a lot of thought into my write-ups because I know how important they are to the students. I typically interview students for about an hour, and spend at least an hour and a half writing the report. I also spend a considerable amount of time thinking about the report, including sleeping on it.</p>
<p>What makes writing the reports particularly difficult is that it is very rare that I interview a student whom I end up disliking. Most are nice young people who have been academically successful and have a lot to offer a college.</p>
<p>My job, however, isn't to write some bland report that says basically, "What a nice student." I have to rate students on the characteristics that Harvard requests, and I have to back up those ratings with specific examples so that my report is trusted by adcoms. These examples include quotes and information about, for instance, the steps that students took in writing their research papers, and EC projects that they had designed and contributed to.</p>
<p>My reports typically are 1-2 typed pages.</p>
<p>I think that most interviewers take their jobs seriously, but some are more skilled than others in writing their reports and conducting interviews.</p>
<p>My Harvard interviewer (EA - Deferred) asked me a fairly good amount of questions and we had a pretty good conversation, but most of the stuff he asked was on my application and I knew that he didn't have a copy of it, but he asked me probably 10 times whether or not I had put the mentioned answer on the application and in most cases I had. So he had these forms in front of him and wrote like a couple sentences and then put them in an envelope, sealed it etc... I mean he just asked me the basic, scores, EC's, interests and didn't do all that comprehensive of a job but I'm really worried that it is ultimately going to hurt. He said he typically interviews 10 or so applicants a year.
This is probably bad isn't it?</p>
<p>BC,
It probably wouldn't hurt or help you.There's not much that adcoms can do if he only wrote a couple of sentences.</p>
<p>Northstarmom does Harvard let you know which of your interviewees are accepted? Based on your comment, "I put a lot of thought into my write-ups...etc." I get the impression you put far more effort into your interviews than the interviewers in my area.</p>
<p>While I'm sure Harvard understands the discrepancies between interviewers, I can't help but feel like a student lucky enough to get one as dedicated as yourself has gained a significant admissions advantage. I don't mean this as idle flattery my experience with college interviewers was that most (and some have told me as much) write 1-2 paragraphs and limit their conversations to 30 minutes.</p>
<p>Do you know, by chance, if your personal interviewee admit rate exceeds the overall average, as I imagine it might?</p>
<p>And even if it doesn't how on earth does Harvard make objective decisions about interviews when there's so much variance between them (and some applicants never even get the chance to have one)?</p>
<p>I'm wondering about that question too. My interviewer said he had no idea how many of his interviewees had been accepted.</p>