<p>So I received a call from a harvard alumni last night and i will go to his house this sunday for interview. But today, i received an email from another alumni saying that i have a phone interview with him. am i supposed to get two interviews? or is this a mistake?</p>
<p>Ask them. I is probably a clerical mistake. No, two interviews is overkill. Actually ONE interview is overkill, but Harvard does need to know if an applicant is so socially unaware as to present him/herself in an embarrassing way.</p>
<p>Interviews in this day and age have no purpose other than to identify social misfits. or inconsistencies between the facts presented in the interview (lied on the app). 
No upside, only downside.</p>
<p>you really think detecting social awkwardness or something more extreme on the spectrum is the purpose of interviews, dunninLA?</p>
<p>great minds aren’t always filtered through sociable exterior personalities and i think (or hope) schools are discerning enough to appreciate that</p>
<p>^ yes. And convention.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s a mistake. Contact these alums and explain what’s happened. If you can choose, T think you should definitely choose the face-to-face interview. You can even say to the phone-interview person that you’d prefer to do the other one, since a f2f meeting seems a little less awkward to you. (I assume it does? I hate phone interviews.)</p>
<p>Dunnin, are you a conspiracy theorist, or are you just messing with the OP? I mean, I too have come to the conclusion that Harvard interviews really don’t mean anything, but…screening out social misfits?</p>
<p>Oh, and OP, you know the word “alumni” is plural, right? That was just a typo or something?</p>
<p>^ I was being somewhat hyperbolic, but I do believe the interview has ONLY downside, and zero upside.</p>
<p>i dont know why you guys are in such disbelief, what dunnin is saying is absolutely correct. think about it for a sec in the college’s point of view and may be that will do you some good.</p>
<p>I used to do interviews for Harvard. For a few years, not for decades, as some interviewers do.</p>
<p>I saw a lot of students who were smart and accomplished and credible candidates, and I did my best to make them look good to the Committee. They didn’t get in. I saw a handful of students who were smart and accomplished, but not quite as good. I didn’t push quite as hard for them. They didn’t get in. I saw one memorable applicant who was completely out of her depth, and I deliberately damned her with faint praise. I didn’t do this because she was stupid or worthless (she was neither), but I did think that she would have been eaten alive at Harvard, and that it wouldn’t have been right to give her a spot in the class instead of some other applicant who would have fared better. She didn’t get in.</p>
<p>DunninLA, I suppose that as I think about it, I can understand what you’re saying. I do believe the interview is a pretty weightless part of the application process. It didn’t help any of the kids I saw; I got in (admittedly, 30 years ago), and I never had one. But I think it would be an extremely rare case in which an interviewer’s report torpedoed an application that was otherwise likely to succeed. That memorable applicant whom I really couldn’t endorse didn’t measure up in the interview, but she didn’t measure up on paper, either.</p>
<p>For the most part I agree that interviews have extremely limited utility. However, I also know that in some circumstances, they are of assistance to the student. I interview for a peer school and several years ago, two guys from a local urban HS applied and seemed great on paper. But their teacher recs were formulaic and w/o substance. While the admissions committee felt enthusiastic about them and suspected the rec letters were more a reflection of the teachers’ inexperience in writing useful rec letters, they still wanted some more info. When fellow alum interviewers submitted their reports which were extremely favorable, they showed that indeed, these two guys were going to be great candidates. This nudged these two guys forward in the committee’s eyes and both were offered admission.</p>
<p>Yes – it’s one anecdote – but the interviews sealed the deal for these two.</p>
<p>Does every applicant to Harvard receive an invitation to interview? or is it automatic. My son received an invitation…and I’m wondering if that means he is one step closer…or everybody gets invited. And does that mean that kids who have not received an interview invitation are out of luck?</p>
<p>Thanks…just trying to get a sense of reality, and not over anticipate</p>
<p>Harvard interviews every applicant it can. The only limitation is the availability of alumni to do the interviews. If you live in an area with a lot of alumni and an active Harvard Club, every applicant will get an interview. If you live in an area where the people are spread out and the Harvard alumni are few, an interview may not be possible.</p>
<p>So, have they looked very closely at app at this point…is it an automated formality, or have they already eliminated apps that they feel “don’t cut it.”?</p>
<p>Sorry if I was vague above.</p>
<p>It was automatic. Once his application was complete, the Admissions Office sent his name (and the names of other applicants from your area) to the appropriate committee of the Harvard Club for your area. The Harvard Club sent his name to an alumnus or alumna who has volunteered to interview applicants, and that person contacted your son.</p>
<p>No weeding-out takes place before applicants are offered interviews.</p>
<p>Thanks …got it.</p>
<p>Harvard will interview an applicant who has absolutely no chance of getting in? That seems such a waste of time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, Harvard will. Trust me. Harvard has sent me to do it.</p>
<p>In Harvard’s defense, the rationale is not that they want to waste the time of alumni who volunteer, but rather that since almost all applicants will actually end up going to college someplace else, they’d like to do something that has at least a chance of leaving a positive impression of the College.</p>