<p>I'm in a special situation... I need to take a hell of a ride(800km) to reach my interviewer.I asked the admission stuff and they offered my to waive it.But I still have my doubts, its not impossible for me to go but it is very hard.
I wonder is there a huge difference between good interview and NO interview?How much a good interview increase your chance?%5? %30?(I know it depends on how good the interview went but I need a estimation)</p>
<p>I’m a freshman at MIT right now and I did not have an interview last year. I missed the interview deadline by 15 days and then when I contacted my interviewer apologizing for neglecting the deadline and asking for an interview if at all possible, she sent me a pretty rude email back saying that she would not interview me and “good luck.” (Even though I know plenty of students who had missed the deadline like I did and still got an interview in late December.)</p>
<p>So long story short, if they have offered to waive your interview and you live so far away, there is absolutely no point in worrying about having an interview. I got in pretty easily RD without one.</p>
<p>Thanks for reply, but if there is only one thing I’m sure of it is getting in RD is not easy :)</p>
<p>I’m also pretty sure if I take a interview it will be great, It will allow me to show lots of other sides I can not show at app…</p>
<p>Waived interview > Good interview afaik.</p>
<p>IMO, the interview is as much a chance for the interviewer to feel connected to MIT, as it is “evaluative” for the Admissions Office (AO). I don’t know the inner workings of the AO at MIT, but at many elite schools, the interview serves many purposes besides evaluating you, the applicant; it allows you to ask questions (“informational interview”), and it allows the school to offer a perk to the alumnus. So, although a somewhat cynical viewpoint, I wouldn’t worry too much about not having an interview; I don’t think it carries much weight in the decision-making.</p>
<p>Well, the MIT website does point out that people who interview have a higher chance at getting in than people who do not interview. However, it does not mention other factors. Perhaps the people who interview also have better grades, scores, essays, awards…</p>
<p>However, for a waived interview, I think MIT admissions officers take into account that it was implausible for you to get an interview. Thus, I doubt that this will hurt you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ummmm… NO. Not even close.</p>
<p>An interview is an opportunity for MIT to try to meet “the real you” whoever that is, and to get a clearer picture of you as an applicant. It is a clear advantage, and the admit statistics bear that out, with only some 4% of applicants admitted without an interview, versus nearly 13-14% percent admitted with an interview or who have their interview waived. If you can easily have an interview and choose not to or fail to schedule one, then that is, to my mind, a clear disadvantage.</p>
<p>That being said, while their are interviewers in Beirut and Kathmandu, there are always applicants applying from places where no interviewer is available. As a result, MIT is happy to waive the interview for these students without penalty. The admissions folder shows that the interview was waived and the admissions officer will draw no negative inferences from that. </p>
<p>However, to suggest that that state of affairs is in some way “better” than a good interview clearly misunderstands the process. The purpose of the interview is to help MIT get a clearer picture of you. Sometimes that isn’t necessary, but usually it is helpful. Just because something cannot be done, does not mean it isn’t useful. I for example would quite like an anti-gravity device, but sadly it cannot be done, so I do not worry about it.</p>
<p>This is the way to view a waived interview. It would be really nice if it existed, but it cannot be done, so lets not worry about it. In no conceivable way is that a better state of affairs than my getting my personal anti-gravity device, but I don’t worry about it.</p>