How heavily are alumni interviews weighted?

<p>Hello friends!</p>

<p>I just had my alumni interview for Yale earlier this week, and it went much better than I expected! I'm not holding out for admission to Yale, though I think I have an okay chance to be admitted if I'm lucky, but I felt very confident about how the interview went (and certainly better than I felt about previous ones :P).</p>

<p>In light of this, I was wondering how heavily interviews are weighted at Yale. I know the Harvard interview is pretty make or break for many applicants; is a good interview performance liable to give someone a significant leg up, or is it largely negligible?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance! :)</p>

<p>The Harvard interview is make or break?</p>

<p>Well, that’s what people have told me before. I don’t have firsthand experience though.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is most definitely not true.</p>

<p>I apologize for my misinformed state.</p>

<p>Alums can easily break you but not sure if they can make you.</p>

<p>I wouldn’t go so far as to say we alumni can “break” a person who isn’t already broken. All we can do is comment on our observations inthe 45 minute session. </p>

<p>I just submitted the balance of my write ups. IMHO, two were mediocre, one very solid, one very very solid. Have I “broken” any one? I don’t think so.</p>

<p>To the OP’s question: the interview is the least important part of the overall file. Many applicants are fully evaluated w/o ever even being interviewed. “Largely negligible” is an apt term.</p>

<p>Okay, thanks for the information!</p>

<p>“IMHO, two were mediocre”</p>

<p>If you said that in your report, would they ever be admitted? This is what I consider as breaking.</p>

<p>If you write gushing reports about some and they all get admitted, then you are making them.</p>

<p>Would my two “mediocre” (IMHO) interviewees be admitted? I dunno. I’ll let you know in early April. It can happen though. My interaction with them is HIGHLY subjective and only a small snapshot. They could be brilliant beyond all belief on the rest of the application. I’m completely aware of that.</p>

<p>In my 20+ years, I’ve had about 8-10 actual admitees and a handful of waitlisters (none of whom were eventually offered admissions). Was I gushing about them all?</p>

<p>No. One had a Likely letter from us and Harvard. She was positively noisome – and I wrote so in my write up despite my knowing the Admissions office had already decided in her favor. She turned us down for Harvard (not unhappy with that outcome – they deserved her).</p>

<p>Another person I recall being “unlikeable”. How one can be unlikeable to me in a 45 minute interview is tough to do – I like everyone, in general. Anyways he managed it – yet he rec’d a WL spot.</p>

<p>FYI: we give ratings from 0-9. 0= no interview, 1= completely unrealistic, 5= strong in the Yale pool, 9= one in a million applicant</p>

<p>I’ve probably given 10-12 eights or nines in my years. The vast majority of my ratings are 4-6. My two “mediocres” were rated four.</p>

<p>That’s how I roll…</p>

<p>Oh wow, more good information! Makes me want to know what number I got…
Oh well, it is what it is and we’ll see what happens in April.</p>

<p>"She was positively noisome "</p>

<p>I gave you too much credit. You can’t completely break them!</p>

<p>I would encourage you to check the CDS (Common Data Set) of the colleges. Section C7 lists the importance of the different academic and non-academic areas. Below is a link to some of the Ivy league schools including Harvard and Yale.</p>

<p>[Common</a> Data Set ?*Provost](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/provost/institutional-research/common-data-set/]Common”>http://www.princeton.edu/provost/institutional-research/common-data-set/)</p>

<p>Both Harvard and Yale list the interview as “considered”. It is neither Very Important or Important in the admission decision process. The only school I know that lists the interview as Important is MIT.</p>

<p>@T26E4</p>

<p>A co-worker who is a Yale alumni interviewer told me that leadership qualities are an important factor he is told to assess–e.g., being captain of the lacrosse team is more important than being the star of the lacrosse team. Does this accord with anything you know or do?</p>

<p>Much latitude is given as to what to assess. Is leadership > achievement? Or vice versa? To me it’s not a trade off. Either is good.</p>

<p>Picture the adcom director for your state the night before letters go out. On his desk sit 300 well qualified apps for only 50 spots and a grande starbucks coffee. All 300 apps have the same grades, test scores, LoR’s and similar EC’s, and essays (edited by mom, the English teacher, and/or a hired gun). He is looking for something, anything to help him decide which 50 students get the “fat” letter.
25 files have a note from their interview that states: great kid, excellent interpersonal skills, will fit in well, admit this kid.<br>
I suspect only 5-10% of the best interviews will help and 90%+ don’t matter.</p>

<p>Do only "likely " applicants get the interview?</p>

<p>@ace550 No, interviews are based on the availability on alumni interviewers in your area.</p>

<p>How can a major metro not have enough interviewers? How do they decide who gets interviewed?</p>

<p>Not that much tbh, like most interviewers told me before they began. Basically, it can give you that little edge if the admissions counselors already want to admit you, or it can hurt you if it raises a flag about your suitability e.g. if you seem extremely shy, don’t want to move out of home, don’t like socialising.</p>

<p>It’s a supplementary thing, there are people who have been accepted with terrible interviews, others who have been rejected with good interviews</p>