<p>I interviewed a few years ago for Brown, at the alumni’s house and it was no problem. It allowed for a comfortable atmosphere for the interview to be as laid back as possible.</p>
<p>I also don’t think it’s necessary for the mother to introduce herself, but if you feel more comfortable waiting in the driveway while the interview goes on, that’s acceptable. It is her interview, not the parent’s. An introduction isn’t necessary.</p>
<p>^^ And another student with a good attitude. How refreshing.</p>
<p>In my house, when I become too psychotic there is always my husband to bring me back to reality. I hope some people here have someone in ther life to do that for them.</p>
<p>LOL oldfort!! There is a tad of paranoia free floating though this thread. OOh, something nefarious is going to happen to my child if I let them interview in a private room with an adult (of same or opposite sex) and if I dont, they will get a black mark on their application. Hey, I grew up in the North and maintain an healthy dose of caution ( eg, always lock my car when I park it) but there is reasonable guardedness and unreasonable guardedness. If a person has had a personal experience that affects their comfort level, thats understandable. But the assumption that something bad is going to happen… well some need to start looking at the brighter side of life</p>
<p>At my local, upper-middle-class mall where the-only-crime-is-the-prices-at-Neiman-Marcus, an adult was abducted several years ago. I still go to the mall and let my kids do the same. You can’t spend your life worrying about the miniscule what-ifs. You’d never get out of bed in the morning.</p>
<p>the odds of the interviewee being assaulted are much higher in a public place (walking into, out of, or within the Starbucks), than in an interviewer’s home.</p>
<p>I propose that the “public place” option is far more dangerous.</p>
<p>I just checked Georgetown University’s web site and confirmed that it still that University’s policy to require an alumni interview of every applicant for admission or transfer to the undergraduate program. It claims to be “one of the few” schools in the country with such a requirement.</p>
<p>I find it astounding that so many here find an interview in the home of a volunteer alumna/i to be of serious concern for the applicant’s safety and well-being. While there might be some theoretical risk, as a practical matter any such risk is de minimus.</p>
<p>That said, had an applicant ever expressed to me a preference to interview someplace other than my home for any reason, I would not have taken umbrage in the slightest. To do so would be palpably unfair to the applicant, and I viewed my role as alumni interviewer to be the applicant’s advocate.</p>
<p>To the OP, I honestly think that your concern is much ado about nothing.</p>
<p>In my observation, the behavior of some people isn’t based on an understanding of probability and statistics. Hence, they modify their behavior because they worry about stranger abduction of children and terrorist attacks on airplanes, but continue to engage in activities (say, driving or skiing) that are statistically far more likely to result in injury or death.</p>
<p>The probability of a student being assaulted by an official college interviewer is not zero. By all accounts, though, it is vanishingly small. I don’t have the statistics, but I’d guess that normally permitted activities for the typical high school senior, like driving with teen friends, playing soccer, or even going to the mall, are statistically far more hazardous.</p>
<p>This thread includes only 2 posts by the OP, brand new to CC (3 posts total).
As we continue to discuss general issues triggered by these posts, also consider these two contributions from the OP, at the start and midway through this thread. Please maintain discussion without insulting the OP or others with opposing views. So far, so good. </p>
<p>Post #1
</p>
<p>Post #177
</p>
<p>I find it funny that there those of you who think that the students posting here recently are so rational and impressive. Could it be because the students you reference agree with you? Ha That’s been my impression here. If you agree, you’re impressive. If you disagree, you’re paranoid and irrational. Interesting logic.</p>
<p>For a young woman, I submit that there’s probably more real danger, statistically speaking, in terms of living 24 / 7 for the next 9 months in a dorm with a couple hundred boys she may not know, than in going to an interviewer’s house for an hour.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was wondering when someone would point this out. And, the actual roommate is very often selected by the school not the student. Each night when your child goes to sleep in the dorm they are likely to be locking themselves in with someone they really know very little about.</p>
<p>Comfort level. To me its all about comfort level. If the student is uncomfortable about an arrangement, its up to them to decide what they want to do about it. Do or don’t interview, ask for a specific interview arrangement or not, live in a single or not.</p>
<p>And, as I read OP’s post at #177, she is going to let her daughter decide in spite of her own safety concerns which she candidly disclosed have intensified after the death of her son</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My school considers the interviews to be more of information sessions. I’m across the country most people won’t be able to visit the campus prior to making a decision. Because of those things, I try to treat my interviews much like I would when I used to give tours for my department. I’ll go through all of the different aspects of the school I can think of, give them tips/tricks I’ve found out while going there, and see what else they’re interested in knowing. </p>
<p>Generally if someone asks if there’s opportunity to pursue X, Y, or Z that means they’re involved in something in high school because they’re actually interested in not, and not so they can pad their application. The length of the interview also tends to really help me figure out which people are really interested in attending the school, since it does tend to be a fallback for technical people really wanting to go to schools like MIT or Caltech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very true! I don’t have a car available to me most days, and public transit here is, well, not worth much, so I have to do all of my interviews within walking distance of my home/office. I’ve had a number of students say they will only do the interview at their school’s interview office which is 20 miles away from me, and they want it in the middle of the afternoon. I just tell them I’m not available at that time and offer another random alumni I can find in the list of interviewers that lives a bit closer to their location.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I imagine the institution wouldn’t lose out much, since they don’t seem to take my comments into consideration, but I feel the students I interview could lose out on their best information about the university short of visiting it.</p>
<p>Finally, as someone that did interviews and does interviews, I’d say I worry more about my safety now as an interviewer than when I was a prospective student. I don’t want to wind up with the crazy that blames my interview for why they got rejected, nor do I want any other potential claims thrown my way. I guess my terms as a TA has gotten me jaded worrying about the things grade-grubbers might try to pull.</p>
<p>MagnoliaMom-
Well, if there are any students that have an excessive fear of this situuation, they haven’t posted here. As was said several times, there is rational fear and irrational fear. The OP describes reasons to be concerned, and presented it well. She expressed concern, not paranoia. Other posters have jumped to extremes with overdetermined, excessive fears of what could happen. Thats what becomes unrealistic or potentially paranoid. It becomes a matter of degree. There is a large range from reasonable apprehension to paralyzing fears.</p>
<p>And mummom, I missed the other snarky crack about the “incredible burden” volunteer interviewers take upon themselves. Still wondering how often you volunteer your time, energy, money, etc in this capacity, or do you prefer to spend your time attacking those who do? The students are so busy that this shouldnt be asked of them? Thats funny, actually.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl … you have an excellent point.</p>
<p>younghoss</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>First off you have turned the analogy on its head.</p>
<p>You are the one who protects himself from the young ladies you interview by having another adult with you. I haven’t heard you mention that these young ladies ever bring another adult to protect them from you - and I dare say a single young women meeting alone with a landlord (or a landlord and friend) she knows nothing about but that she wants to rent an apartment from has a lot more to potentially fear than these kids on interviews do.</p>
<p>The perceived danger in your meetings is in the potential for allegation, not the potential for assault.</p>
<p>It is the alumni interviewer who you should compare yourself with, not the interviewees. It is the Interviewer who runs the risk of hitting that “one bad apple” who makes a false allegation or shows back up at his or her house after a rejection.</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>But your risk IS greater than that of the interviewer because of the population you are dealing with often has a much looser tether to reality than the population of ivy league applicants.</p>
<p>Here we go again. Some people saying it’s ok for girl to go alone because the liklihood of male adult alum raping female high-school girl is so low.
Am I the only one that sees other reasons as well? Are my other concerns so iron-clad that no one dares to disagree?(Ha) Or are my other concerns of so little merit that no one sees value in disagreeing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL–ah, the shoe on the other foot speaks “the truth.”</p>
<p>“Irrational, psychotic, paranoid, excessive fears, paralyzing fears, afraid to get up in the morning.” As the kids say - judgmental much?</p>
<p>Yes, I actually do think kids applying to competitive colleges are probably so busy that an alumni interview should not be asked of them. Probably much more busy in the fall of their senior year than adults who can find the time to post on CC. That’s jmo. Direct, not coy and to the point.</p>
<p>Yup, you caught on, hun. YAY!!! You finally get it. When you use insulting attributes like narcissistic, huffy and incredibly burdoned, it isnt very nice. Yup, very judgemental. So again, how often have you volunteered your time?</p>
<p>And point of clarification- speaking for myself, and not the other posters whose descriptors you listed above, I was attempting to explain the difference between apprehension and anxiety to the extremes of fears, phobias or paranoia. Unlike your posts, it wasn’t directed <em>at</em> anyone, but rather an atttempt to explain when some apprehension is rational and when it is not. Roger did a better job than I in explaining it. Thanks, Roger.</p>