<p>I'm kind of under the impression that the interview is there to make sure you're not a complete social misfit or to make sure there isn't an entire layer of character/information missing from the application. I say this because, well, my interview was pretty bad. The guy said he had done a ton of them over the years but seemed almost nervous, and he didn't carry a conversation, he expected me to do all of the talking. He would say things like "tell me about yourself" or "what do you like to do?"... in fact, I think those are the only two things he actually asked me. The rest was my rambling on trying to strike up some form of dialogue. It ended within half an hour and he really didn't, I don't think, get a good impression of me at all. Bad?</p>
<p>What are your grades, test scores and EC qualifications? Do you have a hook or a legacy or similar connection? What specifically was BAD about the interview? If you think you are the first interviewee who was not articulate, you are wrong.</p>
<p>I have standard Harvard applicant grades, 2380 SAT 3 800s on SAT II, good ECs, but I don't see why those are important. The question has nothing to do with grades, it has to do with the significance of the interview, what it is used for, and if it will hurt me. I listed exactly what was bad about the interview. It wasn't that I was articulate, it was that there was no dynamic in the conversation and nothing special about it at all.</p>
<p>The stats are important insofar as they can supersede a BAD interview if you have something otherwise truly unique about yourself: eg, you are expert at origami; you recently won an INTEL or similar prize; you authored a book on teen suicide that is a runaway hit, etc. Do NOT give the Adcoms any reason to think you did badly, Just try to put it out of your mind. Be sure to supplement your packet with any significant new information and HAVE SOME FUN. BTW, try not to be SO defensive when you ask for opinions on this forum. Good luck!</p>
<p>OMGZ it's Beef Supreme! Would you like some Brawndo, Mr. Supreme?</p>
<p>Of course. It's got electrolytes.</p>
<p>Interviews rarely make or break an applicant, but at the same time, it's up to you to take advantage of open ended questions. Most interviews aren't that long. 45 minutes is probably about average.</p>
<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/258-alumni-interviews-ea.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/258-alumni-interviews-ea.html</a>
I know this is an old post, but the last post on the thread details the interview process from what I understand after talking with my interviewer. So I guess the importance of the interview depends on if your interviewer holds more influence than others and if they truly pick you to support.</p>
<p>Unless I was lied to multiple times, NONE</p>
<p>Very little impact. Too much variation in interviewers.</p>
<p>No one knows except for the admissions committee.</p>
<p>Any answerer who claims to "truly, really, seriously" know the answer to this interview question: doesn't. </p>
<p>Adding more "Really"s or "Honestly"s will NOT give you the real answer to how much interviews matter for your applications. </p>
<p>And finally, search buttons were invented for a reason.</p>
<p>Does anyone think the link I posted before has merit? Could anyone confirm this hard evidence? </p>
<p>....</p>
<p>hard digital evidence that is</p>
<p>....</p>
<p>my sister got on the waitlist at harvard because of the interview, partly at least. I'm aware of this because the interviewer called and told my parents that, and my parents called when she got on the waitlist and they said the same thing.</p>
<p>waitlisted as in waitlisted instead of rejected? or waitlisted instead of accepted?</p>
<p>what do you think?</p>
<p>Then again, I had a brown interview today and the guy told me that he wanted to make sure I wasn't an axe murderer. Apparently I passed the test.</p>