Do I allow my daughter to go to the home of Ivy alumnus to be interviewed?

Parents Forum
381

<p>Equip her with a hidden camera and microphone. Give her a pager and if anything goes wrong, tell her to press the button to call for you- otherwise, she can just use her cell phone. And to be on the safe side, keep a bottle of pepper spray handy for a quick get away. </p>

<p>I’m done with the jokes. You really shouldn’t be too concerned. A lot of alums that interview are really old and it is a lot more comfortable to do it from home. It really would be nice if you knew who the person is, how old they are, etc. before you went in for an interview but I guess its like a blind business interview.</p>

382

<p>Look, what younghoss says is unanswerable on his terms. If anyone were thinking about liability protection (a) the universities would all, like Cornell, ban in-home interviews, (b) there would be some vetting of interviewers, and (c) they would probably require two interviewers at every interview. All of which would lead, predictably, to abandoning the alumni interviews altogether, because very few colleges would be able to muster and to coordinate enough alumni to meet those standards in enough places for enough candidates to meet even minimum standards of fairness. </p>

<p>And maybe, for the reasons mummom gives, that would be no great tragedy. After all, fewer than one in ten Harvard interviewees get accepted, and I would be surprised if the interview makes a meaningful difference in one out of 100 cases. It’s a lot of effort for very little gain – except, of course, I suspect that both the alumni and the applicants generally like them, and the admissions office does not mind the additional input. For colleges that don’t quite have Harvard’s draw, I believe applicants who have been interviewed are much more likely to enroll if admitted. My daughter made a great community connection with her Columbia interviewer, which was nice independent of her disappointing admissions result there.</p>

<p>I remember reading, a few years ago, a lovely little essay by some famous writer (but I don’t remember which famous writer, or which magazine I read it in, although I think The New Yorker) about doing Harvard interviews on Long Island. In 15 years, he had yet to have a student he interviewed be accepted. He had given up hope it would ever happen. But he enjoyed meeting the students – he thought lots of them were great. I imagine that lots of the students he interviewed were thrilled to meet him, too. Over time, he also learned that he enjoyed meeting their parents, and telling them how great he thought their kids were. He got to meet a lot of the parents because . . . he was generally interviewing the kids at his home.</p>

383

<p>Many, many more people who have weighed in siding with the OP’s concerns have been insulted than people have been on the other side of the issue. You and other interviewers are the ones who have presented yourselves as being so “burdened” by the process that you can’t make time to meet at a neutral location. My private life is no one’s business, whereas you have offered yours up for discussion.</p>

384

<p>younghoss–</p>

<p>As I see it, the reason for your concerns is the fear of false allegations of improper conduct against you, right? If *Ivan the Ivy League Interviewer *does not have that level of concern, he’s not going to feel the need to protect against this.</p>

<p>It’s not about the validity of a concern of what “could” happen, it’s the guy’s perception of the risk that it would actually happen to him. I doubt that many Ivy alum interviewers assess a high risk that a female applicant (usually having to have paid an application fee) is in actuality trying to set the interviewer up to make a false allegation against him.</p>

<p>mummom–if the student feels the interview takes up too much time, she (or he) can just not do them. </p>

<p>I find that it takes a lot of time when I have to go in every few years to renew my driver’s license. I have a choice, do it or don’t drive.</p>

385

<p>Totally and completely inaccurate, mummom. Please point to where I ever said I was too busy and too burdoned to do these interviews. I said there may be limits, and if I could not be available to meet a person’s needs, I’d offer alternatives. If it ever became too time demanding, I might have to consider limits. Fortunately that hasn’t happened yet. You are a master at making up stories and presenting it as fact. And as for your private life, I hope you find opportunities to volunteer and help others, like many of us here do, rather than attacking those who give of themselves… It might make you a happier camper.</p>

<p>FYI, I don’t do interviews in my home. I don’t want the added time of cleaning up or preparing a snack, which it would be my nature to do. I have, however, hosted admitted students (and parents) for my older s’s school in my home. I had about 20 people (ironically, my s wasn’t in town and couldnt attend). I always use having houseguests as an excuse to get my H to clean up his office!</p>

386

<p>Re: the discomfort that can result from a lack of privacy at a coffee-shop interview:</p>

<p>My Wesleyan interview took place at my local coffee shop, which happened to be on the campus of the University of Chicago. The interviewer asked why Wesleyan appealed to me, and I said something rote about the advantages of an LAC vs. a university with grad students. The U of C student at the next table interrupted our conversation to say, “That’s totally untrue! It’s a myth, and here’s why!” yada yada. Very unsettling. It was not easy to get the conversation back on track after we explained what was going on and avoided an argument with this other student.</p>

387

<p>Yes, 7dad my reason for a companion is to protect me against false accusations of theft, violence, rape. But in the case of a college interview the risks are the same, but then the risks would be for both parties. Either party could steal, or be accused of theft, or the other risks with little proof for either available.</p>

388

<p>" remember reading, a few years ago, a lovely little essay by some famous writer (but I don’t remember which famous writer, or which magazine I read it in, although I think The New Yorker) about doing Harvard interviews on Long Island. In 15 years, he had yet to have a student he interviewed be accepted. "</p>

<p>I remember it. It was by Jay Matthews, the award-winning Washington Post columnist and former Post correspondent based in China who – incidentally – used to conduct interviews in his home. That’s exactly an example of what might be enjoyable to a student about an alum interview: getting to meet someone with such interesting experiences as Jay has had.</p>

389

<p>aww, I love that warm and fuzzy feeling I get when you express concern about my personal happiness quotient, jym.</p>

390

<p>younghoss–meeting a potential tenant may involve you coming face to face with a virtually unknown quantity. </p>

<p>An alum interviewer is meeting with a HS female about whom the college or university already has a huge amount of information and, unless the HS student is doing this for jollies, the applicant is trying to gain admission to the alum’s school. A false accusation is hardly an admissions resume builder.</p>

391

<p>Really? It was Jay Mathews? Thats cool! I am not sure of the correct terminology, but he is an expert on educational issues. His articles are focused on educational topics.</p>

<p>In my field, we spend hours upon hours alone in a room with people. To have cameras or audiotapes, even with the person’s consent (this is done in teaching settings) could be a violation of privacy or make the person uneasy. Is there risk? Sure. But assessing the degree of risk seems to be the key topic of this discussion.</p>

392

<p>

</p>

<p>jym626–come clean–you don’t do home interviews because you have a concern that the 17 year old boys and/or their parents might mistake you for a Cougar and feel uncomfortable (because college alum interviewers, male and female, are notorious for being on the prowl).</p>

393

<p>Wow again … is that really how the entitled see the world?</p>

<p>Reposting a bit here, but just dumbfounded:</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.”</p>

<p>Harvard shouldn’t have alumni interviews because high school seniors are too busy to have time for them and 93% of them aren’t going to get in anyway? - jeez!</p>

<p>These schools put a premium on time management skills for good reason. Kids who can’t manage a half hour or so for a local interview because they have “enough to deal with their senior year of high school” will not be able to handle Harvard.</p>

<p>“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>Who do you think these interviewers are? They have jobs, they have families, and they have some time that they are willing to donate to their alma mater. That time does not take precedence over their jobs or their families. They are not employees of the college.</p>

<p>They don’t work for you. You don’t get to schedule their time. The “opportunity” of an interview is what they offer, not the “guarantee” of one. If you don’t want to interview, then decline the offer. </p>

<p>It is not the interviewer’s responsibility to try to fit in to the student’s schedule. It is the student’s responsibility to try to fit in to the interviewer’s schedule. YES they ARE doing the students a favor. If you can’t or don’t want to understand all of that, then decline the interview.</p>

394

<p>

Sounds like you might need to occasionally step away from the computer long enough for a needed restroom break, mummom :slight_smile: And I take it too, that that means you can’t find where I ever said I was burdened or whatever inaccuracy you attributed to me. Apology accepted. Lets move on.</p>

395

<p>07dad-
I appreciate your sense of humor-- you know that. But someone is gonna take you at your word!! Cougar. LOL. Thats funny. </p>

<p>*** Odessytigger** Post #393 wins the award for post of the day!</p>

396

<p>“Thats cool! I am not sure of the correct terminology, but he is an expert on educational issues. His articles are focused on educational topics.”</p>

<p>Jay Mathews is a fascinating person, and the students whom he interviewed for Harvard were fortunate to get to interact with him. He was The Washington Post’s first correspondant reporting from China, and his wife Linda Mathews was at the same time the China correspondent for another publication, the LA Times, I think.</p>

<p>He did all of this before covering education, including before starting his famous columns about education, many of which have been quoted by CC members. </p>

<p>Many Harvard alum interviewers are very interesting people, the sort that many folks would enjoy being able to chat with in their homes. Jay is an example of that. </p>

<p>I don’t know if his wife Linda also was an alum interviewer, but she also would have been a great person to chat with. In addition to being China correspondent for the LA Times, she was the first woman editor in chief of the Harvard Crimson, and graduated from Harvard Law School.</p>

397

<p>I second the vote for OdysseyTigger’s post: ah, sweet reason and rationality.</p>

398

<p>Perhaps we should emulate the code duello of the eighteenth century and require that the interviewer and the interviewee each bring “seconds” to the interview. Of course the “seconds” may lie about whether or not there was inappropriate conduct by the interviewer or the interviewee, so perhaps “thirds” are in order.</p>

<p>The interview should also be held in a public place, preferably where lots of people can eavesdrop on the conversation, so that oral (not Bill Clinton oral) suggestions can be overheard and discussed openly by all within earshot. Ideally, the next interviewee would sit in on the interview to make sure that everything was on the “up and up”, but it would be “bad form” to actually have the next interviewee critique the interview.</p>

399

<p>

</p>

<p>jym626–It was supposed to be funny as to you and to make a point about all the concerns expressed about risk and threats, etc. A concern over being alone in a room with an otherwise unknown alum interviewer seems to flow from a concern that “everyone” is a potential threat or that alum interviewers are all potential threats or that male alum interviewers are all potential threats. </p>

<p>Since, to me, only in the most theoritical sense is eveyone a threat, it is sad when I see that there are folks who operate on that assumption since it seems very limiting. The idea that being an alum adds anything to the threat level is also hard to understand. And the view that males are all a threat to females makes me shake my head.</p>

400

<p>Thanks 07dad. Agreed. This thread was starting to feel like a twist on the Bette Davis movie “All About Eve”, with the “just because you (generic “you”, not YOU you) are paranoid doesn’t mean everyone isn’t out to get you” kind of thinking that is hard to comprehend.</p>