<p>When I read about parents that are so worried about the possibility of anything happening to their children that they might have them avoid a home interview, I just am amazed at how overprotective we have become. Yes, there is a possibility that something terrible might happen; but what is the chance of that compared to the chance that the same student might be assulted on street. And yes an adult interviewing a prospective student is awkward, but that is regardless of location.
Think back to when we were kids: there were rapists and pedophiles then (I don’t think the % have changed, there were sickos 40 years ago) but other than being told to “don’t get in the car with starngers”, we were left to pretty much do what we wanted. And yes; we got in trouble, but we learned from that and it made us stronger more resil,ient people. Trying to keep our children free from all the bad things in life doen’t do them any big favor. They are going to run into those things eventually and I think that as parents we have the obligation to prepare them for that; not just a sugar coated world where all the people are nice to you, have jobs, and agree with you. We don’t have to throw them out into that world, but without preparation as they are growing up, by being involved in a variety of situations (probably some that are marginal), that is just what we are doing when we send them off to school, or out into the workplace on their own.</p>
<p>JHS - are you saying that Ivy league colleges PURPOSEFULLY ask an interviewer to conduct a one-on-one interview with a teenager in their own home?
What I am hearing from you sounds more like a fraternity initiation.</p>
<p>OK–some posters relate an applicants discomfort with a public venue interview and others relate discomfort with in-home interviews. Seems its a matter of comfort level. </p>
<p>Question–why would you want to be part of a club that you thought had or allowed antiquated or disturbing practices or procedures? Seems to me that if the applicant wants to make his or her concern and/or venue preference known, they should do it with the knowledge that if the mere request causes a negative interviewers report, the applicant did not really fit into that club.</p>
<p>From the Yale Office of Undergraduate Admissions:</p>
<p>"Where will local interviews be conducted?
When a Yale ASC member calls you to set up an interview, please arrange to meet at a mutually convenient location. Alumni interviews can take place at the ASC member’s home or office or at a public location such as a quiet caf</p>
<p>Re background checks – These are done where required by law. They are slow, expensive, and both over- and under-inclusive in whom they “catch” to an extent that renders them ridiculous except if one is a legislator claiming to have tried to address a problem. No one does formal background checks voluntarily because they think the background checks are a good idea.</p>
<p>Mummom – What you mean by the “times” strikes me as paranoid and uncongenial. I would have no desire to “catch up” to them absent some proof that there was a real, not imagined, problem in need of solving. It’s fine for you to disagree – I promise not to invite you to my home.</p>
<p>Look, to take an extreme example: Socrates was accused, not completely without reason, of corrupting the morals of Athenian youth. Would you rather have Socrates accept you as a student, or have your “morals” be spotless in the eyes of the masses? I go with Socrates, even if there was some actual buggery going on, but especially if there wasn’t.</p>
<p>“…they should do it with the knowledge that if the mere request causes a negative interviewer’s report, the applicant did not really fit into that club.” </p>
<p>I have no issues with clubs making their own rules. But that does not mean that in all cases I have to respect them. What bothers me is the hypocrisy involved in the juxtaposition of alumni, and even admissions, interviews with the supposed value of “diversity.” Let’s face it…these interviews were originally instituted in order to discriminate among applicants based on some less-than-admirable motives.</p>
<p>Wow…that (325 last paragraph) was weird.</p>
<p>I am still waiting for a response from whoever it was who claimed that these alumnae interviews were a mandatory part of the application process. Someone suggested that it is required by Harvard, but not according to the Harvard website <a href=“https://admweb.fas.harvard.edu/ha/Interview/InterviewFrame.html[/url]”>https://admweb.fas.harvard.edu/ha/Interview/InterviewFrame.html</a> I totally agree with those who said we are perhaps more enlightened (perhaps too much so) to the potential risks and dangers out there, but geez, be reasonable . If a student is uncomfortable with the arrangements for an interview, then either politely ask for an alternative or ask for a phone interview. Or don’t do it at all. It is not mandatory.</p>
<p>As an interviewer, I feel I do have the right to have some limits on my time and my availability as well. I get that these are kids and may not have a lot of experience with this process, so I cut them some slack. But if for some reason we were not able to arrange a time/place that was MUTUALLY convenient, I would offer to do it by phone. If they didnt want to do that, I’d tell them that I would contact the school to see if there was another volunteer alum who could provide the interview. Why is this so hard?</p>
<p>*** edit** cross posted with Magnoliamom about the importance of the “mutually convenient” part</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In practice, what is likely to happen is that the interviewer will point out that he needs to interview several students on the same day and can only manage it if all the interviews take place at the same location. This is what interviewers say when students object to having to travel 20 miles to a distant coffee shop/mall food court/library, and I suspect it is also what they say if the student objects to going to the interviewer’s home. Thus, the student could quickly be placed in the position of having to explain the request for a change in venue and should be prepared to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One of the strategies for avoiding trouble that most women have learned from experience is to avoid placing themselves in situations where trouble can easily occur. Rather than expecting to be safe in all situations or forcing ourselves to cope with the most difficult ones, we strategize. Thus, for example, even if we usually travel around our cities by bus or subway during the daylight hours and early evening, we may take taxis door to door when we travel late at night. If we go on blind dates, we meet our date at a public place and use our own transportation, rather than having the unfamiliar person pick us up and drop us off at our homes. If we are smart college students, we do not get blind drunk at fraternity parties, and we ask a male friend (or a group of female friends) to walk us home late at night.</p>
<p>An interview conducted at the interviewer’s house deprives the student of the opportunity to use this kind of strategy.</p>
<p>jym: Did you read Hunt’s post? Attitudes like that are what complicate matters for kids who might want to attend these institutions for the academics, not necessary to belong to an “elite” “club.”</p>
<p>Attitudes like what, mummom? I am happy to volunteer my time as an alum, but if it becomes too demanding I wont be able to do it. If this is true for many alums, the interviews wont happen. Who loses then?</p>
<p>“Who loses then?” I suspect that the interviewers do due to lack of narcissistic supply. Probably the schools, because having alumni interviewers keeps the illusion of connection to the ol’ alma mater alive. Certainly not the kids since the alumni interviews are completely superfluous.</p>
<p>I think Groucho marx said something like “I refuse to join a club that would have me as a member of it” or something close to that. of course, he was a famous comedian. </p>
<p>Yes, Momof, I have seen it repeatedly emphasized the alum is doing the kid a favor- that is, I have however seen it emphasized by a very small few. Most here didn’t even address that aspect. Of those who did, as I remember, more agreed the alum was not doing a favor for the student. I am one of those and said so long ago. If the college requires an interview- or “meeting” as come choose to name it, then the alum is not doing a favor to the student; it is required for the student to attend. If a college recommends an interview, then the alum is not doing a favor for the student; it is expected. Only if interviews are atypical, and the student has requested one, so the college sets one up with the alum is it then a favor. Doing a favor for me is doing more than required for me with no gain for the other fellow. If colleges expect an interview, and alums volunteer to interview students for free then they are doing a favor for the school. I would not expect an alum to be forced to drive many miles to be at student’s house or a cafe near student. But I can certainly see an alum driving 5 minutes to a neutral spot as already described by others.
A student doesn’t pay tuition to his school as a favor. It is required if he attends the school. A prof isn’t doing a favor for students if he shows up for his class- he is paid to be there.
Personally, I don’t see the favor thing as a big factor.</p>
<p>Packers has an awfully good point in post 321. There probably were the same % of rapists and pedophiles 20 yrs ago, or 40 yrs ago as there are now. BUT we only heard about a far smaller % then. The difference is that now as they are reported more often, we are learning the % is higher than people probably thought, than % was 40 yrs ago. In light of that recent info, people may choose to be more cautious than 40 yrs ago.</p>
<p>And, I see a distinction between a cafe(loud? crowded?) is not absolutely perfect for interview- but that is a different “discomfort” as some have said than a 1on1 in a home</p>
<p>To mummom- are you a 17 yr old girl?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It isn’t hard if you accept that its about decisions and consequences. We all are involved in making decsions and living with the consequences every day. Speak up or don’t speak up to a superior at work, go or don’t go into an elevator or covered parking garage with only a stranger around, fly after 9-11 or don’t—just make up your mind and go on.</p>
<p>The tizzy comes with wanting others to provide the circumstances with which you are comfortable. As this thread has made clear, public venue and in-home interviews both have their proponents and opponents. Very similar to most things in life, now and “way back when.”</p>
<p>" Who loses then?" I suspect that the interviewers do due to lack of narcissistic supply. Probably the schools, because having alumni interviewers keeps the illusion of connection to the ol’ alma mater alive Certainly not the kids since the alumni interviews are completely superfluous."</p>
<p>Interviewers lack of narcissistic supply? What do you mean. When I interviewed, I greatly enjoyed meeting the students, and still keep in touch with 4 whom I interviewed . One is now in her mid 30s. Only one of those 4 got into Harvard, but I still thought highly of them, and became friendly with them. They were wonderful teens and have grown into accomplished, nice adults.</p>
<p>As for alum interviews being superfluous – I know that’s not true for my school. If they were superfluous, there would be no reason for admissions officers to have e-mailed and called me with follow-up questions.</p>
<p>In addition to the interviewees whom I still keep in touch with, I know other students who have established relationships with alumni interviewers even when the students didn’t get into the alum’s college. Sometimes those relationships lead to mentoring, internships or other opportunities. Although some here fear that alums are attracted to interviewing in order to exploit the students in some way, truth is that most alum interviewers do it because they enjoy mentoring young people. Depending on how teens meet that opportunity, they may get opportunities or information that is beyond just learning about the college or possibly getting an admissions tip.</p>
<p>Doing a favor may not be the right terminology.
But, as many have mentioned, there is unequal power. Think of it as a job interview. Filling the position is important to the employer but the interview is necessary to secure the job. Who is going to decide where the interview should be conducted?
It can be argued that people who are unwilling to make an effort should not volunteer. And many find that doing interviews is just too much work and either do not volunteer or stop doing them after some time.
It can also be argued that interviews do not count for much, if at all in the admission process (that is my view).
But if a college strongly recommends interviews, it is a brave student who refuses to have one.</p>
<p>“If the college requires an interview- or “meeting” as come choose to name it, then the alum is not doing a favor to the student; it is required for the student to attend.”</p>
<p>The alum is doing a favor for the student and for the college. I am not aware of any colleges that require alum interviews, though some may do so. My college tries to have alum interviews for all U.S. applicants. This depends on alums offering both the college and the students the favor of their time.</p>
<p>Surely hope you are kidding with that attitude, mummom. The alum volunteers do it out of the kindness of their heart- to volunteer time, energy, money, etc to offer to interview prospective applicants of a school they love and want to help. But at some point, if it becomes too demanding, they wont do it. In my region, there isnt an active local club. The school reached out to alums because they had a need. I will not share the kind of information they would like us to provide in our feedback, but I do think that for the mostpart it is an opportunity to help an applicant. But if an applicant has an issue with time/date/location/venue/face-to-face vs phone interview, or whatever, to the degree that an interview cannot be arranged as mutually convenient, who exactly is the “narcissist” in your example? Are you calling the alums who volunteer their time “narcissists”? Thats just rude.</p>
<p>“I am happy to volunteer my time as an alum, but if it becomes too demanding I wont be able to do it. If this is true for many alums, the interviews wont happen. Who loses then?”</p>
<p>Imo, nobody loses if the interviews don’t happen. I agree with jym that nobody has proven that the interviews are mandatory. Yale’s website says they are not required and even goes further to state that they don’t have enough interviewers for it to be possible for everyone to participate in an alum interview.</p>
<p>I came across the following article and thought others might find it interesting. (Disclaimer: I’m not familiar with the source other than it’s “College Explorations: Fifteen “Rules of the Road” for Alumni Interviewers” written by someone in Northern Virginia); this is not the entire article</p>
<p>"Fifteen ‘Rules of the Road’ for Alumni Interviewers
Alumni interviewers are generally untrained volunteers who vary in terms of real-world experience. Regrettably, colleges seldom provide much interview guidance, and they almost never trouble themselves with consideration of the overall quality of these encounters. But maybe they should.</p>
<p>During an interview recently conducted by an inexperienced Ivy League interviewer, a high school student was seriously evaluated based on two questions, Given 8 basketballs one of which is lighter than the rest, how could you identify the lighter ball using 2 weighings on a counterweight scale? And, How much would you charge to wash all the windows in Seattle? Too bad the student brought his resume and not a calculator.</p>
<p>Another student was contacted by email the night before his Ivy alumni interview and provided with a series of ten questions for which he was expected to prepare written responses. The questions ranged from views on world peace to a summary of books read in the past year. The universitys application for admission was nowhere near as difficult or demanding.</p>
<p>While not wishing to question the professionalism or dedication of alumni interviewers (I was one too), perhaps its time for colleges to conduct a little remedial training or at least remind the alums of a few interview fundamentals:</p>
<p>1.Select a neutral site for the interview. Students and parents are uncomfortable about interviews conducted in private homes. At the same time, try to avoid fishbowls where the entire local community can see, eavesdrop, or otherwise kibitz on the interview.</p>
<p>2.Be sensitive about time and distance. Dont ask students to appear at your office during school hours and try to minimize the amount of driving required of a nervous applicant. If at all possible, give the applicant a choice of days and times.</p>
<p>If an interviewer commits an egregious violation of professional standards, students should not hesitate to make a report to the college admissions office. Schools need to know if an interviewer is doing harm or otherwise upsetting applicants by making unreasonable or obnoxious demands. Any college worth attending welcomes this kind of constructive feedback."</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, this topic amazes me. First of all, the use of the word “allow” is intriguing when it comes to a self-determining 17-year-old senior advancing their future career at a (hopeful) ivy-league school that ostensibly in 4 years will give her an advantage in the professional world where she will navigate much more daunting meetings, dangers, exploitations and possibly sexism. I sincerely hope that the parent is just catching up and that the student is in fact mature and intuitive enough to protect herself and manage social situations such as a home interview with a male alumnus, and I do appreciate that sometimes time gets away from us and it’s hard to remember our children are not really children per se and face much more daunting perils at their senior prom than interviewing for an ivy. Control, at this point, is something of an illusion. Caution and care, however, should be a feature already built-in to be world-worthy.</p>
<p>It’s also a little sexist and perhaps naive to think that the danger of sexual impropriety is the exclusive domain of a) men b) who are heterosexual – eg. would those who are opposed to meeting in the home still oppose it if the interviewer was a woman? I can completely understand why a male interviewer would find this offensive, and as a volunteer, ungracious. What kind of society have we become? I mean, someone WANTS to attend a highly selective school where 1 in 10 is admitted. Any opportunity to give a thorough assessment of fit and character is ultimately a benefit TO THE COMPETING APPLICANT. So I am sorry, but alumni who interview are performing a favor to more than just the school – they are helping the applicant make a case for selection or get a sense of fit or gather first hand information about the institution as well. And as such, I believe that volunteer efforts call for graciousness on the part of the recipient.</p>
<p>I would personally not enjoy meeting in a public place such as a coffee shop, because the environment is highly distracting for both parties. Short of a closed office, the interviewer’s home seems a natural place to conduct an interview PROVIDED there is a quiet place to do so.</p>
<p>Ivy or not, interviews seemed to be used only for very selective colleges/programs. The point is obviously to add personality traits to the admissions equation. If you ask for a change in venue the interviewer may detect the unease (paranoia) and consider it a negative, or perceive the request for a different “mutually” convenient location to be unnecessary (inconsiderate) and consider it a negative. Maybe not, but you never know, and is it really worth risking if this school application is important to you?</p>