<p>
[quote]
...</p>
<p>No Ivy League university requires an interview, and most encourage talking with an alumnus rather than an actual admissions officer </p>
<p>
[quote]
No Ivy League university requires an interview
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought Harvard did. Odd.</p>
<p>Interesting article -- I was never fond of the interview part of admissions, anyway.</p>
<p>"A University of Pennsylvania interviewer in northern New Jersey, Maria Ho, said she usually gives positive reviews </p>
<p>College interviews at age 17, when the applicant has no idea what to expect, no idea what the interviewer really wants to know. It doesn't seem like a good way to evaluate all candidates to me. Yes, some students have a knack for conversing with strange adults without being nervous or worrying about saying the wrong thing, but I don't think it is a good way to screen for college admission.</p>
<p>My husband and I cringed, no make that CRINGED, at the idea of our son doing those interviews. There is simply no way that this particular very accomplished kid--who had held responsible jobs usually filled by adults, who was the leader of a district-wide externally funded program that sent him around the state to give speeches, who teachers lauded to me as one of the finest class leaders they had ever seen--was going to come across well in a personal interview of this nature. His low-key, thoughtful, quiet-spoken, analytical self probably came across as uninterested and glum.</p>
<p>We knew it was going to be bad right after the first one. He was applying to engineering colleges with the idea of majoring in computer science. The summer after junior year (and into senior year) he had a job for State U that involved helping professors order computer systems, setting them up and networking them for the profs, evaluating their software problems for them and loading corrective programs, etc. After this first interview, I asked him if the interviewer found his job interesting or relevant, and he responded, "she never asked me about any jobs I had, and I didn't think that would be relevant, so I didn't mention it. I thought it would sound silly." Dumb 17-yr old response, yes, but a disqualifier for a selective program? I don't think so.</p>
<p>He did get accepted to that college, by the way, and to all but one other for which he interviewed. He thought the interview for the one school that rejected him had gone well; given that the interviewer asked to meet me afterwards, and stayed around to do so and make small talk, led me to think it had gone well also. Didn't count for squat.</p>
<p>Good riddance to interviews--they are too subjective, and they select for the wrong characteristics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree that the "accuracy" of college interviews can vary widely from alumni to alumni, but I should still think they should play a considerable role in college admissions - they're the hardest to fake, in my opinion. I just feel like you can get so much more insight on a candidate, and to ignore things mentioned by an alumni seems somewhat ridiculous.
[/quote]
You can think that, but your beliefs fly in the face of much of what is known about interviewing. In fact, being a good interviewer is one of the most difficult skills to achieve, something that nobody expects a part-time alum interviewer to master.</p>
<p>"No Ivy League university requires an interview, and most encourage talking with an alumnus rather than an actual admissions officer".</p>
<p>Would be nice if the author had her facts straight. Cornell's Colleges of Architecture, Arts & Planning and Hotel both require interviews.<br>
"Architecture and fine arts interviews are evaluative and carry significant weight in the admissions selection process." (CAAP's web site) The ironic thing is that it's a NY paper and her main source is a college consultant in Ithaca, NY. Ah well . . .</p>
<p>I think an interview is another factor to consider in the process and a very good one. Why should an essay count more than the applicant's responses in person? Certainly there is more opportunity for assistance in an essay. Of course the interviewers know who they're speaking to, so I doubt that poise is what they look for as much as honesty or sincerety. </p>
<p>More importantly, how do you put your quotes in a box???</p>
<p>" He thought the interview for the one school that rejected him had gone well; given that the interviewer asked to meet me afterwards, and stayed around to do so and make small talk, led me to think it had gone well also. Didn't count for squat."</p>
<p>You don't know that the interview didn't count. For all you know, what kept your son out had nothing to do with the interview, but may have had to do with factors like there being an overabundance of other excellent applicants similar to your S. Many excellent students get turned down by top colleges even if those students have excellent grades, scores, interviews, etc.</p>
<p>"You can think that, but your beliefs fly in the face of much of what is known about interviewing. In fact, being a good interviewer is one of the most difficult skills to achieve, something that nobody expects a part-time alum interviewer to master."</p>
<p>Some of the alum interviews are people who also conduct interviews as part of their professions.</p>
<p>Even alum who aren't professional interviewers may be able to put the student's achievements in context for their community. This includes the ability to discern when students are lying about their ECs (I have caught students lying about their involvement in activities that coincidentally I have been involved with). It also can include interviewers appreciating activities that may seem mundane when viewed from the perspective of people working at Harvard, but are remarkable in the context of the town where the applicant lives.</p>
<p>I have to agree with Igglesfan. Throughout these boards (and indeed throughout our lives) we've seen people who have excelled at different things. Why not 17 or 18 year olds? Some kids test well, some don't. Should test scores be everything? midmo, your son may present beautifully on paper and be able to write a stellar essay; another kid may be more articulate in person. If your son were not a good writer, would you advocate getting rid of the essay? Why should one necessarily trump the other? Isn't more information about a student better than less?</p>
<p>Chedva, the problem, as I see it, is that different interviewers appreciate different things about prospective students. One may respond positively to the bouncy, exuberant, cheerleader type, while another may find it annoying. Similarly, one may appreciate that future tech leaders like to be precise in their verbal communications, and therefore do not make idle chit-chat easily (at least not with strange adults), while another interviewer, an alum who majored in theater, perhaps, puts a lot of weight on ready banter. Not all leaders are potential political candidates. </p>
<p>The problem is complete lack of objective standards, for both interviewer and interviewee. (I am speaking of out of town alum interviews, not on campus, admit staff interviews.) There are no clear expectations about how the candidate should perform, and there may be great variation in the skills, background and prejudices of the interviewers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't more information about a student better than less?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, if one can trust the quality of that information. The process seems too random to me, too likely to be measuring the wrong characteristics, or overlooking the right characteristics.</p>
<p>Northstarmom, the point of my anecdotes was to say that my own son's off-campus interviews were entirely unreliable as a predictor of admissions outcome. He was admitted to the school for which he "flunked" the interview, in his estimation, and rejected from one that seemed to end with support on the part of the interviewer. So, what is the point of going through the interview?</p>
<p>FWIW, son's record of leadership and skill at team work earned him a full merit scholarship to a top-20 university. He never interviewed at that school, for either admission or scholarship. (And they did not make a mistake. As all of his written evaluations and recommendations made clear, he is a talented leader, albeit one of the quieter ones.)</p>
<p>"Northstarmom, the point of my anecdotes was to say that my own son's off-campus interviews were entirely unreliable as a predictor of admissions outcome. He was admitted to the school for which he "flunked" the interview, in his estimation, and rejected from one that seemed to end with support on the part of the interviewer. So, what is the point of going through the interview?"</p>
<p>The interview simply adds more data to what the admissions officers will consider. A student-ranked great interview or terrible interview doesn't predict whether the student will be accepted any more than do SAT scores that are excellent or average when compared to the other applicants'. The alum's enthusiasm also could relate to the alum's not being very familiar with how high the bar now is. Of course, the alum may be accurately reflecting the student's stellar qualities, but because of the high number of outstanding candidates, the admissions officers may choose not to admit that particular student.</p>
<p>In addition, students may not be able to judge how they did in an interview. Just because an alum is enthusiastic doesn't mean that the student had what the admissions officers would view as a great interview. The alum may have been enthusiastic for reasons that -- when the admissions officers read the report -- are not reasons that the college would see as cause for admission in an extremely competitive field.</p>
<p>Similarly, a student may feel that they bombed an interview, but the alum volunteer may simply be a person who doesn't outwardly show enthusiasm, but would write a report documenting why the student should be admitted.</p>
<p>The kind of interview reports that H wants interviewers to write include quotes from the students as well as evidence from the interview that supports the interviewer's rating of the student on a variety of factors. Ratings with no back-up aren't going to be useful to admissions officers, and my guess is that such superficial reports are simply ignored or second interviews may be arranged with more experienced alum interviewers.</p>
<p>Well Northstarmom seems to suggest that her Harvard interviews do make a difference in the admissions process. Perhaps that is true, or at least has seemed to be true in her case.</p>
<p>I have been interviewing for Penn for probably something like 20 years and I can categorically say that the interview is next to meaningless as an evaluative tool. If people would apply critical thinking the reason would be obvious--if I am a member of an admissions committee having experience and training, how could I possibly give any real weight to the opinion of someone I do not know and have never met who may be totally inept at it or have some strong bias and who has met an applicant for a brief time? It would be totally irresponsible.</p>
<p>So, you may ask, why do I bother interviewing? Well, I loved Penn and I fulfill this role because I am a Penn ambassador. Sure, I like to meet the kids, and I do take a lot of time and care with this--talking to them for about an hour, answering questions, asking substantive questions, writing up thoughtful evaluations--but my real job is to leave them with a positive impression of Penn so that they want to go there if they get in. Penn does not say this outright, but it has become pretty apparent over the years that interviewing has the positive benefits of making alumni feel connected and valued and making the students see an actual human face connected with the school if they live far away. I am a goodwill ambassador and that's perfectly okay.</p>
<p>As you can imagine I have interviewed lots of kids over the years. We do get some loose guidance--but there's no way Penn could know exactly what we are saying to an applicant. They are trusting our love for the school. I do not see or ask about an applicant's academic record. I have found that there are kids I adore who do not get in and some I am not crazy about who do. There is no correlation between my evaluation and the admissions results. I attribute this to all of the really important things I do not know about an applicant that are the real basis for the decision. And this is as it should be. I don't think a one hour talk should be a substitute for years of effort.</p>
<p>I think interviewers should be encouraged to test a student's ability to answer questions intellectually, and further test their knowledge of subjects in which they have previously expressed interest to the interviewer. </p>
<p>For example, my alumni interviewer for Princeton asked me about the courses I was currently taking as a senior in HS. One of the courses I mentioned was a course in 20th Century History, and in response he asked me some very tough questions regarding the importance of the Treaty of Versailles as well as subsequent agreements, and whether Versailles' detrimental and extended effects on global geopolitical landscape could have been avoided. This "mini-debate" took up most of our interviewing time, and I felt pretty satisfied with my performance, and so did the the alumnus. </p>
<p>From what I've heard from people who are Princeton ASC Interviewers, most of them ask questions that do not really have any consequence for the interviewee. They don't "test their mettle" so to speak, and because of this, many interviewer's remarks are not very distinguishable. Even important permitted questions, like "what interest do you have in attending _____?" and many students will reply "I heard it was a good school" or similar and thats all. If I were the interviewer obviously that would not impress me in the slightest, but as many previous posters have indicated, many colleges have decreased the emphasis on 'interest'. In my opinion if they did more screening in this way maybe the % yield would increase slightly, but who knows? </p>
<p>Generally, my argument is that interviews should be less open-discussion based, more rigorous, and ask more hard-hitting questions. Interviews for veterinary and medical schools are like this, which is probably why more of those schools require them.</p>
<p>tokyorevelation, I respectfully disagree. First, there's no way to "match" the student with an interviewer knowledgeable in the particular areas in which the student is interested. You happened to have gotten matched with a history buff. Suppose it had been a biologist. Were you prepared to be questioned substantively in biology, particularly if you hadn't taken the subject in several years? Second, how would you have felt about your interviewer if you hadn't yet reached the Treaty of Versailles in your curriculum? Would you have been so sanguine about the "oral exam" you were taking?</p>
<p>Vet schools and med schools require a particular and known set of skills for its applicants, and thus can grill their interviewees to determine those skills. Undergraduate schools, particularly those in the liberal arts or with a large number of majors, minors and other certifications, cannot.</p>
<p>In response, you're digging in a little too deep. Actually I prompted him that this was the topic we were discussing at the time in class, sorry if I failed to mention this. Every student should be able to defend their points of view intelligently, whether orally or in writing, and that is a skill that all people who are interested in attending college should have.</p>
<p>This is a really tricky question. I think that most interview write-ups are generally positive, but probably generic enough that it would be hard for them to sway an admissions decision, particularly because an adcom has to ask: "is the a great student or just an alum who can write a great rec?"</p>
<p>But . . . I met a student recently who is attending a highly selective college. He is a URM who went to an inner city school and had good but not stellar grades in a college-prep curriculum. His standardized test scores place him at the absolute bottom of the incoming class. </p>
<p>Talk to this incredibly articulate young man, who's got social skills that are off the charts, for 5 minutes about his family situation, his summer internship at a law firm, his intellectual interests, or the reasons he will not play his sport the moment it interferes with his academics, and you know that this kid is extraordinary. I don't know if he interviewed on-campus, but know that he had an alum as an advocate--one who was capable of conveying that this was a once, maybe twice in a career sort of student. Any college who didn't give weight to an interview with a student like this missed an opportunity to admit a real gem, even if cases like this come along rarely. For that reason alone, I don't think smart college should discount interviews entirely.</p>