<p>Hiya, all!
So, I know that many things are considered when BS admissions look over applications. Diversity, grades, the application and ECs, financial aid, and the interview. </p>
<p>But, how much importance is actually placed on the interview (or, how much do you reckon is)? </p>
<p>Could a fantastic interview help an applicant with a fairly good application get accepted?
And, could a lukewarm interview have an applicant with a great application be denied? </p>
<p>If you'd like to, could you rank things considered in terms of importance?</p>
<p>I believe that the general consensus is that a strong interview can definitely push you over the top . . . except when it doesn’t.</p>
<p>The problem is that none of this is so easily quantifiable. How much of a difference the interview might make in any given case probably depends on a number of factors known only to the admissions officers reading that candidate’s application.</p>
<p>Also, whether an interview was a success or a disaster is probably not an assessment the candidate can make. What your interviewer thought of your performance and what you thought of your performance may be worlds apart. What you considered to be “polite,” your interviewer might have perceived as “uptight and uncommunicative.” And what you thought was “the screwball comment that killed your application” your interviewer might have assessed as “relaxed and forthcoming.”</p>
<p>We hear all the time about candidates being accepted to schools where they thought they bombed the interview and other candidates being denied at the schools where they had their absolute best interviews.</p>
<p>Interviews cannot be so easily quantified.</p>
<p>Now, about that list of factors schools consider in assessing an application . . . diversity is the last thing they look at, not the first! No one skips to the “in” basket based on factors (such as home state or ethnicity) beyond the candidate’s control.</p>
<p>I expect the answer might be different for different schools, too.</p>
<p>I would guess that the interview is extremely important at a small school (300 or less students) where the school is looking very specifically for kids who will “fit” the culture of their school, where the “peer culture” is really emphasized. (An example might be Thacher School - around 250 students.) The impact of a “non-fit” kid on the school would be proportionately larger if the student body is very small.</p>
<p>And the interview might be less important at a really big school where strengths in very specialized areas (Math Olympian, budding science researcher, published author) are highly regarded. (An example might be Phillips Exeter Academy - around 1000 students). Cohesiveness of the student body may not be as big a factor at such a large school. (I recall that a while back someone discussed their experience at Exeter, and being told their application was “stand-alone” without the interview. And have I heard that some students are accepted at Lawrenceville - 800 students - without an interview? Someone with specific knowledge - please jump in here and correct me if I’m wrong here!)</p>
<p>This is just my guess - I do not have any specific info, just a “gut” feel on this.</p>
<p>@dodgersmom That is a very informative answer that most certainly does make me more nervous. </p>
<p>I should probably clarify, however. I didn’t mean to come off as listing the things (diversity, grades ect.) in any particular order in the post-I was just naming them as I was thought of them.</p>
<p>@mountainhiker-That sounds right…How important do you think “peer culture” in schools with 300-1000 students?</p>
<p>My understanding was that schools were looking, in part, for some sense that the student can carry off a conversation. We were told that the subject matter and the specific answers
were not as important as seeming engaged, thoughtful and verbal enough to participate in a classroom deiscussion. What we were told at one school was that they were looking for signs of “maturity.” </p>
<p>I’m guessing here, but I would suspect that a detached interview followed by teacher recommendations that reinforce a the impression of a disengaged though bright learner might be an issue at some schools. </p>
<p>That being said, my kids have been through nine interviews at seven schools and probably four of the schools had fifteen minute interviews, two had twenty-five minute interviews and at one each of them had about a forty minute interview…it made me wonder if different schools weigh the interviews differently.</p>
<p>In general terms, it’s impossible to give a definitive answer unless there’s a school that publishes that. Colleges disclose this in their “Common Data Set” – a uniform questionnaire about college admissions, matriculation and persistence. They identify the various components of the application file and disclose how heavily they factor it in. I’m not aware of any boarding schools that share that piece of information.</p>
<p>That said, the interview can kill an applicant. I know of one instance in which I learned from the admission officer – after the rejection letter came in – that my son’s interview sealed his fate. The admission officer said that my son answered a certain question in a way that demonstrated he was not like the other students at the school. He told me this in March, looking at his interview notes from October. In the intervening months that particular school’s admission people contacted him (and my wife and me). We didn’t think those contacts signaled anything…but we were quite surprised to later learn that all that remained to be done was hit the “Print” button on his rejection letter.</p>
<p>I can likewise see how an interview, in the right circumstances, could catapult an otherwise run-of-the-mill applicant into an admit – particularly where the applicant reveals new information that didn’t make it into the hard copy of the application. I have trouble buying into the scenario where an applicant’s eloquence and maturity cause a sea change in the admission decision. There are more than enough eloquent and mature applicants to go around for an admission officer to be surprised or overwhelmed by a precocious 8th grader. I think it’s more like the disclosure of an important fact that doesn’t show up in the applicant’s file.</p>
<p>Example 1: “I thought this would be a good place to get away from my suffocating Uncle Warren Buffet”</p>
<p>Example 2: “I didn’t write down any sports for ECs because I haven’t played youth hockey for 2 years. It’s not that I didn’t want to, but the league’s coaches said I was too good and the other divisions won’t let me play because I’m too young.”</p>
<p>By contrast, an 8th grader who waxes eloquent on the topic of maximizing the economic impact of foreign aid to Third World nations may be memorable, but not necessarily in a way that distinguishes him from others enough to convince an interviewer that this applicant is the one they’ve waited for these past 160 years.</p>
<p>Weatherby and D’yer Maker, let’s not get too carried away. C’mon now… the BS interview isn’t seeking the same depth of detailed information that a corporate interview seeks. The BS interview focuses on:
… Can the kid converse comfortably with an adult?
… Does the kid have any “attitude” issues?
… Is the kid interested and interesting?
… Is there a thorny family situation?
or, as simplified by a few schools,
… Is this a “nice” kid?</p>
<p>The kid’s capabilities and achievements are covered by other stuff - grade transcripts, standarized testing scores, SSAT scores, teacher rec’s, long-term EC involvement, etc.</p>
<p>After attending several “panels” this fall (with an audience of parents, and five or seven or so Directors of Admissions taking questions), I can add this: Several AO’s mentioned that the interview was a way to identify “reluctant applicants.” This type of candidate was rarely offered admission, because apparently this was very obvious during an interview (not to be confused with a scared, nervous or shy applicant) through body language or attitude. </p>
<p>I think the interview goal is just to try to get to know you and see where you might fit in. A bigger school has more variety, I would imagine. Smaller schools probably carry a culture and if someone is way out of the box, their environment might be a horrible experience for that person.</p>
<p>And @DyerMaker, that really stinks about your son’s interview question. I was really sorry to read that.</p>
<p>I agree with Kitteny. I think an interview which brings to light that the student is not enthusiastic on his own, seals his or her fate. It is much harder to have an interview “make” the cut since there are so many factors that go into selecting a given student.</p>
<p>The following wasn’t an interview question, but I could picture how it might go if it were. My son’s friend when filling out the application wrote:</p>
<p>Why do you want to come to Exoverkiss? </p>
<p>(not even in a complete sentence)…“Because my father went there.” (nothing else)</p>
<p>The mom told me the story, stating that they didn’t interfere because they wanted DS to get in on his own. Needless to say, he didn’t.</p>
<p>Wearing a Choate shirt to your Deerfield interview could also send the wrong signal.</p>
<p>KG is spot on with the reluctance thing. First thing one interviewer told us was, “I tried three times and couldn’t find a chink in his armor.” Seeing our puzzled looks he told us that three different times he asked, “Quick! On a scale of one to ten, how badly do you want to go to BS?” Twice DC said “Ten”, and the third time he said, “Twelve!!” Still puzzled, we asked why he would be here if he didn’t want to go. Interviewer said that roughly 80% of the kids he interviews are there because the parents are making them, think it’s a good/best option, or have some misguided idea that BS is the way into the Ivy league/top colleges–Jr. goes along, but the fire is not self-fanned. Among other things, they are looking to avoid attrition.</p>
<p>Jaypeeh, in 15 minutes, there is not much the interviewer can learn nor is there much time for a candidate to distinguish themselves. The game would be about making a good impression, commitment to acceptance at THEIR BS, and a certain level of maturity. </p>
<p>You want the interviewer to walk away with the feeling this kid is bright, committed to a BS education, engaged, fits our culture, and will matriculate.</p>
<p>Weatherby: I’ll be more specific. Andover, Loomis, Middlesex and Choate were all pretty brief. Governor’s and Concord were longer. Both kids had really long interviews at Exeter.</p>
<p>Wow . . . that’s one of the most interesting pieces of information I’ve seen on CC for a while! I’d be interested to know how other interviewees’ experiences varied from school to school.</p>
<p>For our family, I can say: Hotchkiss and Deerfield were long. (And the others I can’t remember. :()</p>
<p>IMO, the interview has greater ability to catapult an applicant from a maybe to a definite admit, or a maybe to a rejection, than does the difference between an 85% SSAT and a 95%. It is rare that my impression of a candidate (I’m a head hunter by profession) gathered in the first 15 minutes changes later. I think that this is true for the vast majority of interviews, including an 8th grader interviewing for a boarding school. AO’s adjust for the nerves and inexperience, but still make rapid assessments that bear heavily on decisions.</p>
<p>For a variety of reasons, I agree with mountainhiker that interviews at a smaller school are more important TO THE SCHOOL than at a larger institution like Exeter. To the student, of course, matters of fit are equally important regardless of school size. Thacher requires an in-person interview – no Skype, no remote interviewing, no alumni interviewing. There’s something to be said for this heavy emphasis on giving both parties the chance to kick the tires and make the most informed decision possible. It likely contributes to the School’s 80%+ yield. </p>
<p>Unless you know your child is naturally skilled and conversational interacting with adults under pressure, it may be a good idea to do a bit of role-playing to help him or her get a basic feel for the dynamics. But, it’s a fine line. Coached behavior, coached answers turn off interviewers. Authenticity, a smile, eye contact and a firm handshake rule the day, especially for an 8th grader.</p>
<p>How much effect may also depend on the weight of your interviewer in the admission office. If your interviewer read your application, and hold senior position in the office, he may advocate for you (if you really impress he/she). For a lot of people, the interviewer just sent a report. </p>
<p>At an open house in PA, the dean talked about an interview she did. She was deeply impressed by the applicant’s knowledge in reptile animals. The applicant got in. Not sure how strong other factors though, however, the interview did play an very important role in the success.</p>
<p>My understanding is it doesn’t really matter WHO interviewed you, or what their position is in the admissions office. The reality is that schools have to rely on many people in order to interview all the applicants, and the more applicants, the more people have to help. (Plus, the Director of Admissions has lots of responsibilities beyond just interviewing applicants, so I would guess that a proportionately smaller percent of their time is spent on that one task, than perhaps the time spent on interviews by an associate admissions officer.) </p>
<p>Schools employ multiple people in their admissions offices (Director, Senior Associate Director, Associate Director, Officer - I’ve seen all sorts of titles). If they didn’t value the input of these people, they wouldn’t be employed. </p>
<p>Many schools also rely on alumni interviewers. If they didn’t value the input of these people, I expect the alumni would very quickly stop volunteering their valuable time to help out their alma mater!</p>
<p>I do think that someone sitting in a committee meeting can advocate for a “favorite” applicant. But I’m not convinced that applicants who are interviewed by the Director have a proportionately higher chance of being accepted than applicants interviewed by others.</p>
<p>(Once again - YMMV - I’m not an admissions officer. Perhaps this is a question to ask GemmaV when she resurfaces!)</p>
<p>I think post 17 is spot on - an interviewer, and esp an experienced one, can sum up a candidate in 15 minutes. I would never underestimate the importance of the interview. I would also suggest that another item that gets overlooked sometimes but is equally important is the rec letter. I have known it to get a “perfect on paper” kid rejected. Ultimately there is a set gamut of grades and scores at any given schools. Most kids do ec’s appropriate for their age, and some even way over. The only things that distinguish an individual student are their recs, interviews, and to a lesser degree, essays.</p>