<p>Agree with Donemom above. In addition, if an applicant submitted fabulous essays, but did not have top grades in English, and great recommendations from his teachers that spoke highly of his writing skills, that too would be a red flag to any admissions officer worth his salt. There are unethical ways to create a false picture of a students abilities, but I submit they will indeed "smell funny" to a savvy adm committee.</p>
<p>Donemom, the topic of interviews came up in an old thread a while back. I seem to recall Northstarmom catching a lot of flack when she brought up some of the same points you did- that she could detect lack of enthusiasm or sincerity on the part of the interviewee when it came to summer projects, jobs, community service, and what not. (Northstarmom are you out there- correct me if I'm wrong.) People got totally bent out of shape! How dare someone suggest that an interviewer could read minds on the basis of a 30 minute chat! Some students are just naturally reticent! Just because a student is shy doesn't mean that he or she didn't do what was said in the application! Not every student is going to bubble on effusively about his or her "insert-extracurricular-activity/summer-project-here." Point is, you probably CAN detect a lot of truth on the basis of an interview, but not all schools/scholarships interview every applicant. Even those that do probably whittle the pile down first.</p>
<p>About validity, it's true that there are loopholes with testing and grades, probably cheating too. I'm not saying that there aren't, but at least some guidelines are in place to attempt to ensure, if not guarantee, legitimacy.</p>
<p>Doubleplay, while there are cheaters with everything, I can't imagine any SIGNIFICANT activity that a student has done, that can be faked to this degree. For instance, all of my own kids' activities were not just referred to on their apps and resumes, but those same activitities and accomplishments came out in teacher recs, guidance counselor reports, supplementary recs and interviews. I think there are ways to tell if a significant activity is legit. This may not be so with this or that little "club" here and there but anything worth much would come across in more than one way with an applicant, and not merely on some list of activities.</p>
<p>XIGGI...I don't quite put this kid or his parents in the same group with Kat Cohen, Shaw, or Blair Hornstine. To me, he is pretty much a typical very good student. His parental "assistance" is not SO unusual, but is not at the comfort level of some. I also do not think the article is overly interesting. He is another bright accompished kid. I do think that the general public thinks kids like that can get in anywhere and so in many ways, it is good to showcase that even the vals and accomplished kids get rejections too. It is a no brainer to me and to many on CC, but not so much to some.</p>
<p>"And I bet that experienced college interviewers (like Northstarmom, for example, who interviews for Harvard) would tell you they can spot a kid who's faking it a mile away."</p>
<p>Please!</p>
<p>Since when are interviewers skilled to recognize "fakers" from a while away? Have they received special training? I'd say that if Harvard does provide such training, the school might consider reviewing their manual, in light of the Kavyya and Blair cases. </p>
<p>The reality is that, except for being alumni and alumnae, the interviewers are merely volunteers who come to the task with a wide range of experience, but not necessarily in judging the merits of an applicant beyond the little that is discussed in an interview. Manners, presentation, and social skills might be evaluated, but pretending that an analysis of the background is part of the interview is entirely misleading. Inasmuch as a few anecdotes might exist about a candidate being caught fibbing about his volunteering at the local hospital, I very much doubt that he or she was one of those who have been prepped, groomed, and packaged through the years. What good would a wonderful play be if the hero--and lead actor--can't deliver the lines without a teleprompter? </p>
<p>The role of interviewers is not the one of a gatekeeper, but one of public relations; a fact well recognized by Stanford, which is planning to change its policy of not using interviewers, but only in support of their outreach programs. </p>
<p>Please note that is NOT a criticism of the people who generously offer their time helping students discover a bit about their targeted school. It is, however, quite a stretch to give their role more importance than warranted.</p>
<p>Xiggi, as an alum interviewer for a very selective university myself, the majority of my interview session is not so much outreach to inform the student about my college. That is a tiny part of it, though an opportunity for the student to ask questions (and frankly their ability to ask specific questions vs. having no questions or obvious answer questions, also sheds light on their level of interest in the school and is reported). Anyway, the body of the questions are about the applicant, not about the school. This interview results (at least in my case) in an extensive narrative report. Now, the interview doesn't make or break an applicant, but things that come out in the interview are another opportunity to support (or not) what is revealed in all the other "pieces" of the application process. So, if a student delves into one or more areas of passion and his/her accomplishments in that area during the interview, one would hope that this might be the fourth of fifth place where that came out (on top of the application, resume if there is one, teacher recs, GC report, and supplementary recs or materials). My college does use the interview reports and discusses with the interviewers what they are interested in learning about the applicant through the interview and how they would like any opinions supported by facts and much much more. I'm not saying how much weight these play in admissions, but the interview should be another piece of "evidence" that supports what every other piece has indicated.</p>
<p>And, Xig, even in the business world, there are liars and cheaters who obtain high level jobs and they were not caught when hired. Adcoms and interviewers, like employers, are not the CIA. They do the best they can to form judgments on the materials and information they gather on a candidate. That is not to say that someone here or there gets in who was a fake in some area or another.</p>
<p>Agreeing with Xiggi here. As a USA Today scholar, widely publicized nationwide, and subject of a separate story about his college search and admission process, this boy's story is fair game for comment and speculation and even criticism on a college discussion forum. Don't people have a right to vent if they need to, even if it's not necessarily nice? It's an online discussion forum, not a column in the boy's hometown newspaper. It's not like the young man or his grandma is likely to read what's said here and get upset. </p>
<p>What's wrong with letting forums like this give some parents an opportunity to vent a little? Even if it's not nice, it's harmless. I imagine it would be very frustrating to parents whose kids have excelled in science, would like to attend a highly selective college for the opportunities in science it offers, but whose own background or jobs or school district give them no opportunity to help them find a mentor or guide to do this level of research. And then, here comes this USA Today article about a boy who is an Eagle Scout, serves on the school board, is a valedictorian (one of many but still), started the fencing club and oh, by the way, conducted fuel-cell research that resulted in a patent application. Maybe a little red flag goes up, but you bite your tongue and say "good for him." Then Xiggi's five minutes on google makes it very, very clear that the playing field was far from level on this particular EC.<br>
I think that response to this aspect of the kid's application has been positively restrained and more than nice. Probably lots of venting going on off line, I guess. Lots of muttering "life is not fair" at the computer, but keeping hands off the keyboard. </p>
<p>If we're going to engage in discussions of fairness regarding NMS and the boost high scores give to admission and scholarships, why isn't it fair game to dissect whether the help students get from parents and mentors in their Intel projects is fair or not. (There's already been a thread on this, I know.) I'm just commenting to say that if people want to post with frustration and harrumphing about this kid winning the jack pot in admissions and scholarships due to an "eyebrow-raising" thumb on the scale, I think they should have the right to do so without having their opinions deemed not sufficiently nice to warrant posting.</p>
<p>Susan, I am obviously well aware that you are an interviewer for your alma mater. The message by schools has been that an interview is supposed to HELP a student, and that it is not meant to be some kind of test and THIS DESPITE what intervievers think or say about their roles. I agree that the interview also sheds light on their level of interest in the school and is reported. Again, the issue of demonstrated interest is worthy of a challenge. Are the schools that ignore such elements, or shun interviews altogether missing out? Do the schools with extensive networks of interviewers do a better job or are they simply boosting the chances of students living in academically strong or ... reachable communities? </p>
<p>My take on this: the interviews are not important--a mild expression of my true sentiments about this process--nor should they be pursued by candidates. </p>
<p>PS I would encourage you to read the many accounts of "strange" interviews. mostly from the most elite schools.</p>
<p>I don't doubt for a moment that some kids do get away with lying about ECs or anything in their applications. People do get away with things. However, as a middle aged mother of 5 who has talked to so many kids, there are many times I know someone is lying. Something may be said that is blatantly false. I may know someone or something coincidently, and may mention a bit of the conversation, and a lied can get discovered. I don't even pretend to be trained in this or have the experience that alumni and adcom interviewers do, but sometimes things just don't ring true. And sometimes just for a lark, I'll google something or check something. Many kids do not have the wordliness to know how to lie convincingly about something they do not know well. And this is a small world, so it is too easy for things to get out. It isn't cool to say you are year book editor, when the true yearbook editor applies to one of the same school, and may even be interviewed by the same person. I know in one case where a young man lied about his role in a restaraunt where he bussed and did odd jobs. He made it sound like he single handedly ran the restaraunt. Knew enough about the operation that he did not miss a detail, and could discuss it convincingly. Too bad the owner was the brother of someone who was looking at his app at the Hotel School. Just casual conversation unearthed that whopper.<br>
Though kids often pride themselves in their acting abilities, it is often easy to tell they are feigning enthusiasm or knowledge of things. No, not everyone is caught, but many are. You don't oftne even know you are caught as adcoms are often too busy to be confrontative about these things, and will just reject your app, if you are lucky. Another may drop a note to your highschool counselor who might want to have a word with you and insist you write a letter addressing some false or exaggerated claims.
When I was a young girl, I marveled at the ability that some people have to so quickly assess pieces of Asian art which I loved. and sort of collected on a very small time basis. Ten years ago, I walked into a reputable shop, and immediately spotted some mislabled pieces that just stood out like sore thumbs to me, and yet went under the radar of some specialists. Don't know how, but I could just tell, and investigation proved me correct. This kind of wisdom just slowly comes to those interested in a field, and assessing kids is not different.</p>
<p>Xiggi, most alumni interviews count for little. Especially if all goes well. Most alumni are generous in their assessments, that I know, anyways. But if something is flagged, or something is not right, you had better believe an adcom will give it some weight. In those schools where the mission is to get the applicants down to a managable number, adcoms are looking to exclude, not include. That is a prime difference in assessing a "regular, run of the mill applicant", and one with a hook. If the applicant has something the school really wants, the application is viewed with the purpose to justify admission, not scoured for a reason to reject. At some of these schools where the numbers are so incredible, it does not take much to get put on a reject list, and a lack lustre interview, or something that does not ring right is a valid reason to put the appon the reject stack.</p>
<p>I'm sitting here now with the scene from "Meet the Parents" going through my mind, except instead of DeNiro and Stiller I'm imagining the poor student hooked up to wires and the interviewer asking, "Now... did you or did you not really go to Indonesia last summer and work with lepers?"</p>
<p>Re interviews and faking it. I think it is 50/50 whether an alum interviewer can pick up on "faked" credentials/ECs. Depends on the interviewer, the direction the interview takes, etc. etc.</p>
<p>I think DoneMom was referring to a different type of interview seeing through faked accomplishments. My S is in no way one of the superstars we see in Intel finals, etc. But he did win, as a freshman in hs, a statewide science competition of freshmen and sophomores for a project he did. Even that competition, in our little old state, involved the judges interviewing him re his project, how he made decisions, etc. etc. I wasn't there so I don't know the exact content, but do know he had to be able to show some depth of knowledge that he could not have, had my H or I or our new-best-friend-the-Nobel-scientist-next-door actually done most of the work.</p>
<p>If this is how it was for that competition, I'm guessing it's more intense for the Big Ones. Now, this doesn't address the issue of "unfair" advantage/access/support that may benefit some of those finalists. We can all have our opinions of whether that is "fair," but the notion that someone else actually did the work is a little different.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I know there have been reports of some very strange interviews. I agree about that. I also acknowedge that outreach is ONE ARM of the interview process. </p>
<p>However, for my university...Tufts....in my handbook for interviewers, it goes beyond that. It says, "TAAP members (these are the interviewers) provide the admissions office with a better understanding of the ability, achievement and personal characteristics of applicants.".....
"The interview report is important for many reasons. The report may reveal new information about a candidate and confirm certain talents or abilities. "
"Indeed, many interview reports have an effect on admissions decisions" (they talk about an effect but definitely doesn't dictate decisions)
"Although your conversations help to pesonalize the admissions process and your report will add depth to the candidate's application for admission, your input will not be treated as a recommendation but rather, a critical piece of information about an applicant's attributes."
Indeed, the interview is meant to personalize the process where an applicant's character or personal attributes can come across in ways that black and white stats do not reveal. Tufts further informs us that beyond the stats, they are interested in a student's initiative, motivation, and achievements in school and community.
"Usually the interview report reflects the high school performance, activities, recommendations, and other information presented in the application."
This is what I was discussing earlier...how the interview should support the other findings. A student who is a fake would have to keep that up with every teacher rec, GC report, supplemental recs from those they have worked with outside the classroom, and in the interview.</p>
<p>When it comes to the EC portion of the interview (which is ONLY ONE PART we cover), we are guided to not regurgitate all their activities, travel and work experience. What they want us to do is to help the adcoms understand "the significance of a student's extracurricular involvement and the level of interests a student has had in these activities. The interviewer may gain a better understanding of the energy of an applicant and the impact and contribution that the student has made on the school or community."<br>
In other words, we are not just verifying the "list" but the student's level of interest and involvement and achievement. A student who made up an activity is going to have a harder time coming across as genuine in this respect under the many questions I am given to ask. A fake is not going to have supplemental recs from those who worked with him in those endeavors attesting to their contributions. </p>
<p>Can a fake fall through the cracks? Likely, yes, but for the most part, interviews are just ONE way to gather a more personal side of information about a candidate. Tufts wants us to focus our reports on the significance of the student's academic interests, achievements and expectations for college, not the data that is on the application so much. They care that we file the interview report on time to be part of the review process. If they didn't bother to read them, they wouldn't bother to set up this very involved reporting process with deadlines and everything. They want the interview to provide insights that may not otherwise be available to the adcoms. That is the essence of the interview process. They even give us samples of effective interview reports and ineffective ones.</p>
<p>I agree with 183, 188, and 189.<br>
(1) interviewers can be more perceptive than people realize;
(2) they're more for excluding than including.
(3) significantly visible e.c.'s (including awards, esp. nationally & internationally, which is what highly selective colleges care about) can be checked on; clubs & activities of less high profile are not scrutinized as much because they are not having a major impact on admissions.</p>
<p>Of the 7 schools my son applied to, only one interviewed him, and that was because he was up for a scholarship. The rest made their decisions without an interview- they took his application at face value. Some of these schools were competitive privates. So our experience was apparently different from those out there who have had their kids' applications validated for truth through an interview process. His letters of recommendations were "blind", and from teachers who had little or no relationship to his ECs; that is, he had to submit the recommendation forms that were part of the application to his guidance counselor, who gave it to his teachers (at least he got to pick the teachers, although they had to be academic teachers), and the rest was handled without our ever seeing the letters or the evaluations. Is this uncommon? Other than that, we were "allowed" to submit other letters from outside sources but they had to be sent under separate cover.</p>
<p>As epiphany says, those activities that really mean alot to a college, are easily checked. It would be really stupid to claim you are an Intel/ Siemans semifinalist, or winner of the prestigious math/science olympiads. Ain't no way you're gonna fool them that you are going to be a contributing athlete in a school where it makes a big difference. Pretending to be a legacy is not going to fly either. And you do not get on the development list without someone checking out your family. Most other things just don't count enough to matter. Georgetown lists the number of triathletes, student council presidents, music virtuosos, editors ,etc that apply each year. Really humbling how many there are. The very top schools do not seem to even care about National Merit finalists or Presidential scholars, things that seemed to be pretty important when I was applying to college.So why the heck lie, when there isn't much of an "up side". When you are outside of the top 25 (whereever you want to draw the line) colleges, there is much more emphasis on the grades and test scores, as those schools are striving to up their numbers that way. That is a measurable element.</p>
<p>Different sets of interviews are involved and for different purposes. </p>
<p>I imagine that the Intel interview focuses intently on the project. An interviewer would be interested in knowing how much of the project is the student's own contribution and how much it is that of the mentor. And that interview ought to be able to smoke out the fakers.</p>
<p>A college interview can go in many different ways. My S's two interviews focused very little on what he had done. One interviewer was clearly qualified to discuss math, but the other was not, having studied something quite different in college. Both interviewers talked mostly about the social scene at their respective colleges, gave some advice, discussed S's hobbies, etc... In other words, there was no attempt to gauge whether S was the person he claimed to be on his cv.</p>
<p>Doubleplay, MANY students get into top schools with NO interview at all. The interview is just an additional piece of information that sheds light on personal attributes and hopefully also affirms other things in the application. My older D had interviews for most of her schools. But, in the case of Penn, which uses alumni interviewers, there was no interviewer for our region. She still got in and was selected as one of 100 Ben Franklin Scholars. I have a feeling, however, that where she did interview, it was just an added plus. She is someone who would interview well and is very enthusiastic. It is rather funny but this past year, during my D's soph year at Brown, I "met" her alum interviewer on CC by chance (she started realizing that she may have interviewed my daughter when I mentioned things about her in some posts) and so now, after the fact, have heard the interview went well, though my D had felt so on her end (she now attends Brown, btw). </p>
<p>Also, this may not be the case in a big city, but when I interview a candidate here, while I don't know the candidate, I have a sense of some of the activities that they are discussing and can put some in perspective due to my familiarity with the region and having had two of my own kids involved in lots of stuff. I recall my D talking to me about her interview for Brown which was 25 miles from home and in another school district. She did not know the interviewer. However, the interviewer works for a big newspaper in this region. At the time, our HS was in the news. My D was even quoted in that newspaper. While this was not part of the official interview, the interviewer did ask her take on the situation at our HS, being familiar with it. As well, around the time of this interview, my D had just taken over for the tap dance teacher for a semester at our dance studio which is located in the interviewer's city, because the teacher was tending to an ill parent. It turned out that the interviewer had a child in that tap class and so knew enough about this dance studio and so forth. It often can be a small world. Kids I interview mention some activities that I am actually "up" on and so know enough to discuss them and I can tell what is genuine or not, or what is significant or not.</p>
<p>Simple question . For those who have a glance behind the curtain at the College of Oz, would a science project/research ec that was at a mindbendingly high or professional level , would you want to know that the project was in the same technical field as a parent's current work ? Or would that not be a relevant field of inquiry to admissions? </p>
<p>If it is not a relevant field of inquiry, why not? and what would make it relevant or even a red flag? Would a lower than expected SAT score, say bottom third , be something you would want to know about in that instance?</p>
<p>Now let's say you do know about the "coincidental research" of applicant and parent . Would you want to know "how much was dad , how much was darling?" Do you ask about it? Why or why not?</p>
<p>I have to think that interviewers and admissions folk would want to know some of this stuff if a kid found a new prime and the dad was an MIT math researcher working on finding a new prime with some "one in the world" super computer and the kid had a 690 math SAT - but that's just my take on it. Or I guess they could just chose to accept it at face value.</p>
<p>What you really mean Xiggi, is that what is annoying is when other people disagree with YOUR opinions. You claim the holier ground that you should be allowed to express opinions with or with supportable factual data, yet you complain when people disagree with your views. Can't have it both ways.</p>
<p>Cur:
I suspect that adcoms would not have the time to do the detective work that Xiggi did. Granted, there is google, but there are 20+k applicants to the College of Oz. I would have thought, however, that Intel would have wanted to know. Maybe not all Intel participants, but certainly the semi-finalists should be scrutinzed.</p>