<p>My opinions kind of skew towards fireandrain’s. I think the interviews can’t be dismissed as meaningless, because the U. goes to so much trouble to get as many people interviewed as possible. On the other hand, I don’t think a stellar interview will make up for a black spot on your app. I think of it like this: considering the caliber of applicants applying, a good interview provides a small leg up. It provides, as my interviewer said, “an unvarnished reaction” to an applicant. If your application is on par with someone who had a poor interview, a good interview on your part can tip the scales. I think all aspects of the app. hold only a small amount of weight on their own. It is the convergence of all of those factors that the adcoms use to make their final decision.</p>
<p>lr2009: I interview students in a nearby coffee shop. I used to do them in my home – and never thought that was an issue until I started reading posts here on CC that said how inappropriate that is, and so I stopped.</p>
<p>Yes, but when an interview can be good or bad based on nothing more than a random alumni’s perception and/or ability to interview properly and/or level of sanity… it makes it baseless.</p>
<p>Except that admissions says the interview report is “crucial.”</p>
<p>My impression is that interviews are turned to frequently in borderline cases and otherwise they are just used to confirm that the “message” or “story” in an application that they see matches the story of the person. That seems pretty important to me, even if that won’t award you a ton of points on a percentage scale.</p>
<p>…which supports what I’ve been saying about the interviewer’s opinion meaning very little.</p>