I had my Brown University alumni interview this weekend and I believe it went extremely well. We talked about cultural division, philosophy (ie. Is your green the same as my green?), politics, art, and where I came from, what my school is like, etc. I think it went extremely well and our conversation was invigorating and I asked quite a few questions. However, I’m not particularly sure this matters. I’ve heard that the point of these interviews is not really to identify great students but rather to weed out students who can’t hold conversations.
Also, this lead to me questioning how much my glowing letters of rec matter and how much my art portfolio counts in the decision process. Are these pieces merely to weed out students rather than improve my odds of admission?
Interviews don’t really matter that much, but recommendation letters are very important. You should be happy that you did so well in your interview! That certainly doesn’t hurt, but we don’t know how much it helps. Just don’t get your hopes up; my interviewer literally told me that I’m perfect for Brown and he sees no reason why they wouldn’t accept me, and I was deferred.
That’s pretty much what I thought, considering it’s optional. I think with so many applicants Brown can afford to be choosy and ultimately the process is so subjective I don’t think it’s worth scrutinizing things and I’ll just have to wait until March haha. Thank you for your help!
I was told by an alumni who interviews (not my interviewer, but a family friend) that the most important part of the interview is just showing up. Actually getting interviewed shows interest and commitment to the school, and that is really what Brown cares about. Obviously if you have a terrible interview it can hurt you, but this alumni said the vast majority of kids end up getting really good letters from their interviewers, so a good interview won’t set you apart.
In several conversations I have had with our regional admissions officer (Yale) and senior AO’s, including Quinlan, on what makes someone stand out among all the perfect to near perfect stat’s candidates, they kept on emphasizing the LoR’s. This makes sense because it is a piece that is coming from a third party and is not subject to (or as subject to) coaching, manipulation or other forms of gaming that EC’s or personal essays may be subject to. We are also not talking about LoR’s that are a formulaic collection of superlatives. The types of distinguishing LOR’s that the AO’s cited were ones that were factually/anecdotally tied to desirable qualities and were consistent with the other parts of the candidate’s application.
A good recommendation from an alumni interviewer is a plus, but typically alumni interviews don’t carry a ton of weight in the admissions process because: 1) not everyone can be offered an interview and 2) the alumni interviewers are not formally trained and can be a bit uneven in terms of their ability to interview.
Alum interviews are “eyes on.” Sometimes, when the app doesn’t do it, maybe runs flat, a positive, informative interview report can add to the picture. Sometimes, it reflects apparent disinterest in the school or the kid can’t articulate why he wants it.
Unfortunately, many LoRs are formulaic or astoundingly short. But a great LoR can’t overcome when the applicant doesn’t show those qualities in the app itself. Holistic.
And with holistic at a tippy top, no one piece can trump. If the kid didn’t put the right efforts in, over 3.5 years if hs and getting the app right, that’s a problem.