<p>
I do think this would be a better approach, for an interviewer “like me.” I would still think it was a little nutty, but I don’t think I would ascribe the nuttiness to the student. And really, I don’t find it “egotistical” to feel insulted that a student would be afraid to come to my house for an interview if the interview was set up by my alma mater. Maybe we should have the interview at the police station?</p>
<p>
I would bet lunch that a higher percentage of people are afraid of flying than are afraid of driving/taking a bus/taking a train … and in that in net more people avoid planes than cars/buses/trains because of their fears. Experience shows that flying is by far safer than the other modes of transportation … I am quite comfortable saying that despite the fact that a reasonable high percentage of people fear flying that responding to that fear by taking a form is ground transportation is irrational … it is a decision seeking perceived safety and actually increasing the odds of an accident greatly.</p>
<p>An at home interview is not a direct analogy but for any family that is wary of them if they are being consistent to actual risk they must be wary of a ton of situations. Acutal risk experience is much more associated with situations and behaviors than with stangers/known person … in fact for women they are much more likely to be attacked by someone they know then a stranger. To me a similar situation is the ever increasing wariness about leaving young children alone due to the fear of what might happen to them … in fact the odds a stranger pops up and does something horrible to a child has DECREASED greatly over the last 100 years or so … however with CNN and other medisa outlets there is much more publicity to the cases that do occur now … (fyi - the vast majority of child disappearances at this time involve situations such as non-custodial parent).</p>
<p>I find it “nutty” to use Hunt’s wording, that Hunt sees only 2 options- to have a girl come to his home, or to meet her at a police station. What he left out is what many are trying to express here- that there are many safe AND reasonable measures in between. They may not be perfectly ideal for either party, but they are safe and reasonable.</p>
<p>“mo, nobody loses if the interviews don’t happen.”</p>
<p>I think that students and the college can lose if the interviews don’t happen because sometimes things --good or bad – come out in interviews-- that don’t come out in applications.</p>
<p>For instance, I believe that a few years ago when Harvard had EA, my interview report may have tipped a student in. Some impressive info came out in the interview that I doubt that the student had included in her application because it wasn’t on her resume and when she discussed it to me, she didn’t realize its importance.</p>
<p>By coincidence, the student was in a select youth leadership program that I also worked with – though I hadn’t worked directly with that student. I knew how difficult the selection process was, and I knew that what the student had accomplished in the program was more than what the organizers had dreamed of, so I was able to include that in the report. What the student had done would have looked ordinary to people in Cambridge, but where I live, students are much more sheltered and passive, so what she had done was very impressive for my area.</p>
<p>In a couple of other situations, I caught students in lies during the interview. None got into my alma mater though one did get into a highly ranked school that didn’t interview applicants.</p>
<p>I just resent the insinuation that it could be unsafe to come to my house for a college interview set up by the college. I just find that nutty. The danger is so vanishingly small that it’s silly to worry about it, compared to the real risks of daily life. I don’t see why colleges, or individual interviewers, should have to give in to that level of paranoia. (I will allow that there might be cultural reasons for discomfort; that’s a different story.)</p>
<p>I also wonder why some think it “prudent” that I meet with an adult single female prospective tenant in someone else’s company(given ALL the reasons for concern-not just rape), yet they feel it’s ok for a 17 yr old girl to meet with an adult man as described.</p>
<p>That would imply somehow my meeting a young female adult is more risky than an adult male meeting with a high-school girl. The logic escapes me on that one.</p>
<p>Well, I think your practice is overkill, too, younghoss. It may be prudent if your insurance company makes you do it, I guess.</p>
<p>“…insulted by such a request and think that the student was irrational.” This is truly eye-opening to me. Though nsm mentions 17, 18 and 19 year olds, I’m not sure what high schools she is familar with. Most of these kids are seventeen."</p>
<p>It may depend on where you live. In some states, including I believe mine, the cutoff for kindergarten is that one must have turned 5 by July 1. In addition, some highly educated parents in my community delay kindergarten for their boys because the parents know that in general, boys take longer to socially mature than do girls. Being an older boy in a class usually is an advantage.</p>
<p>Most of my college’s alum interviews occur from Jan.-March, and most of the students are 18 by then.</p>
<p>To the huffy interviewers here: what would happen if your alma mater eliminated alumni interviews? In the case of Harvard, some 93 out of 100 kids will not be attending the school. So all these kids run through hoops worrying about whether to order a coffee at Starbucks, what to wear, etc. etc.–for what? These kids have busy, busy lives, and, frankly, enough to worry about their senior year of high school. Yet YOU are somehow doing THEM a favor by inviting them into your home to chat for an hour? I am curious how your institution would suffer if you no longer took this incredible burden upon yourselves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. It’s about the relative risk of a situation. H is at a (relatively) high risk of a false accusation since he sees women without their clothes on in private rooms, all day long, because that’s the nature of his job. Therefore, the precaution of having a nurse present at all times is a reasonable one to take, so he has “backup” if someone ever accuses him of monkey business in an exam room. That’s a prudent precaution in light of those particular circumstances. If he were, say, a lawyer meeting women clients or dealing with female associates in his private office in the course of his job, insisting on another female present at all times would fall under the category of an over-the-top precaution, IMO. </p>
<p>And the background check thing doesn’t do much good unless someone already has a record. Everyone who does something “bad” has a first time. My Harvard-grad neighbor cleared a background check to be able to adopt a child, with his wife – because he WAS clean as a whistle until such time as he (sadly) decided to molest her. The Sunday-school-teacher-and-community-pillar who molested me as a teen would have cleared any background check – because he was also clean as a whistle until one day when he wasn’t. A background check can clear out the obvious Chester the Molester types, but it only provides a minimal level of assurance.</p>
<p>From the Harvard website:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, it seems that interviews are not mandatory at Harvard.</p>
<p>mummom–is your concern that face to face interviews perpetuate racism and/or sexism at the Ivies?</p>
<p>“To the huffy interviewers here: what would happen if your alma mater eliminated alumni interviews?”</p>
<p>Harvard would probably miss out on some gems, and probably would accept some students who – due to the help of highly paid college consultants – look far better on paper than they do in person. </p>
<p>" Yet YOU are somehow doing THEM a favor by inviting them into your home to chat for an hour?"</p>
<p>You act like students aren’t eager for these interviews. Judging by what’s posted on CC, it seems that most Harvard applicants and applicants to other top schools – want to be interviewed. They are the type of people who enjoy the opportunity to sell themselves in person.</p>
<p>I’ve seen far more posts by students who are concerned because they haven’t been contacted yet by an alum interviewer than posts by students who feel burdened by such interview offers. The exceptions, however, are students who are very timid, and say that they find the opportunity of such an interview to be terrifying (That’s a big sign that a place like Harvard wouldn’t be a good fit for them). </p>
<p>Other exceptions are the students who apply to 12-30 schools, and then have difficulty fitting in so many interviews. Those are the ones who post on CC in late Feb. and in March acting like they’re doing interviewers a favor by showing up.</p>
<p>Question to parents here: Would you prefer that the colleges where your student applied have alum interviews (assume that the location is a neutral one) or would you prefer that your student not have to bother with such interviews?</p>
<p>Only one of my sons was offered an alum interview, and that was a two-hour drive away. We knew S was a long shot for the college, but we gratefully drove S there (S didn’t have a license), and felt that the experience was a good one even though S didn’t get accepted. I thought it was a good experience for S to have to sell himself in that kind of situation. I also thought it’s important for my kids to have such experiences while they were still at home and able to get parental guidance than after they leave the nest and have to figure out things basically on their own.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m an applicant to a elite school with a 10% acceptance rate and there are tons of similarly qaulified candidates on paper to me in the applicant pool. If the school offers a chance for me to introduce myself personally to someone from the school and let them meet me the human and not just me the paper application then I jump at the chance … and no I would not put myself at significant safety risk to do this … but I certainly would want it to happen.</p>
<p>I’m not particularly sold on the value of interviews. But the discussion is not about whether Harvard or other colleges should do away with interviews–it’s not something that CC parents and their offspring can control-- and what applicants risk by not accepting an offer to be interviewed (not really known, no matter what websites say). It is about whether an applicant should be interviewed in the interviewer’s home.</p>
<p>By the way, my S2 was 16 when he was being interviewed, not 18 or 19. S1, who had just turned 18 was interviewed in someone’s home even though the general area had plenty of cafes.</p>
<p>I agree Hunt, it may be overkill, but it is the protection I prefer. It is one of those things that can only be determined in hindsight. If I don’t do it, and problems arise, then it’s easy to see I should have done it. If I do it, and no problems arise then we’d never know if problems would have arisen.</p>
<p>However, my query in my post 346 was aimed at those who have said they agree my having a second person is good business practice. There have been a few here that felt so, and a few that have agreed in pm’s. I was hoping those who agreed with my practice would explain why the risks are greater for 2 adults meeting alone compared to a teen girl and adult male alum meeting alone.</p>
<p>“Question to parents here: Would you prefer that the colleges where your student applied have alum interviews (assume that the location is a neutral one) or would you prefer that your student not have to bother with such interviews?”</p>
<p>Personally, I think the experience of interviewing is a good thing for kids to go through, assuming the location is a neutral one. However, I think it should be done on a basis that allows equal footing for all of the applicants at that phase of the process. In other words, cull the applications, then interview <em>all</em> of the applicants that made the cut. To me, having the interviews as optional and not having an interviewer available to all applicants just discounts the worth of the process. What about those great applicants that don’t get interviews?</p>
<p>Totally agree with NSM in her last few posts. No need to repeat what she has said. The interviews are at the request of the applicant. If I request something, I dont then dictate the requirements. Common courtesy says it is worked out in a cooperative fashion. They funny thing is, for probably 99.99% of these interviews, the topic being discussed here is a non-issue. And mummom-- you studying for the SAT or something? Sure looks like you love to throw in those hostile adjectives and adverbs, LOL. Huffy? Narcissitic? Puleeze. For that matter, add paranoid and arrogant to your list. Most here would not likely use them when referring to the volunteers. What do you have against people who volunteer their time and energy to help their alma mater?</p>
<p>Anybody else notice that the student posters heere have been the most reasonable and rational posters? Good for you!! Its impressive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could it be that they are busy living their own life rather than figuring out the right way for everyone? Or, mere youths–what do they know?</p>
<p>Exactly, 07DAD. They seem to be demonstrating good critical thinking, problem-solving, and risk-benefit analysis. And all that without personal insults! I want to interview one of them!</p>