<p>We have just returned from visiting most of my D's college choices for interviews--5 in all. One was fantastic and encouraging , one very short and inconclusive, the other 3 went reasonably well but D felt they could have gone better--either a question caught her off guard or she didn't hit it off so well with the interviewer, or she left feeling she should have answered something differently. None of these colleges have seen her transcript, some asked for SAT results but she had only the Old SAT and will have to take the New in October.
Several followed up with e-mails written in very positive, supportive language providing answers in more detail to questions she had asked. How well the interview went cannot be correlated with how difficult to get in or selective the college in question appears to be or even with D's varying levels of enthusiasm.</p>
<p>So how much can be read into how the Interview went?</p>
<p>How often does a "great interview" result in rejection or a seemingly poor interview result in acceptance?</p>
<p>I believe that "good" interviews frequently result in NO offer of admission. Just remember that the college is assembling a class....a mix of students. There is no way to predict what the college will need from the interview.</p>
<p>I agree with Hazmat...I believe that the interview is rarely if ever the deciding factor in whether an applicant is admitted. I think that most admissions people use interviews to determine whether the application matches the applicant, to assess the fit of the applicant to the school, and to exchange information. Of course, an interview's relative importance increases as you move up through the tiers.</p>
<p>Interestingly, DS found that he evaluated a school via the interview as much as the school evaluated him. One school he was seriously interested in was moved off his list because he didn't care for the image projected by an assistant admissions director. The gentleman's cockiness completely turned DS off and my DS saw that as a reflection of the type of person the school might be interested in.</p>
<p>Bottom line, I don't think there is a strong correlation between the interview and the acceptance. Colleges seek texture during the admissions process. If every interviewee were an exact match to the interviewer, the college would be monolithic and boring. I say, don't worry...just work the application, the essays, the stats...and stay positive and high energy. The right school with the right academic and social mix will accept your child, and you'll wonder why you worried so much. :O)</p>
<p>Oh, by the way, I like "Bell, Book, and Candle" too, Pye.</p>
<p>I agree, don't read much into it. D had a terrific interview at one LAC. Interviewer called me in after and told both of us that D was a VERY strong candidate. Had asked gpa, scores etc so the interviewer had the full picture. Said her school was terrific, as good as top privates. And though she couldn't actually say anything..... We leave with the feeling that this school had moved into the safety column. Come April---waitlisted.</p>
<p>I would not sweat the interview. It's expected that 17 and 18 year olds can be nervous. </p>
<p>Close to the end of one of my D's interviews, I was invited into the room. THe interviewer asked ME a question and I became tongue-tied!
At least, I was able to make my D look good (by comparison!)</p>
<p>Yeah, I agree with SRMom3. I had an excellent 2 hour (!!!) interview for Brandeis. It went so well that it seemed more like a conversation than an interview, and the interviewer was extremely encouraging. He even said he expected to see me at the send-off in August. The news in April? Waitlisted.</p>
<p>Several of you have said that good interviews led to waitlisting. But what about so-so interviews? Anyone know people accepted with uninspiring interviews?</p>
<p>pyewacket--yes; to be very specific, my D's interviewer at Bates didn't know her high school and seemed a little bored by her (though the dean of admissions did know the high school and was very cordial at a later visit); the interview semed to my D to be ok but not a meeting of the minds. She was a bit disappointed in the interview because she liked Bates. She was accepted (was almost certainly in the top quarter of applicants so not a surprise, but still...). </p>
<p>Her two Dartmouth interviews (on-campus with a senior and locally with an alum) both went poorly she felt and she was, in fact, rejected (was probably in upper midrange of applicants but as a middle-class, overrpresented minority from the Northeast would have had to be better than ). Other interviews went well in her opinion but there were only a few; one led to April acceptance, two to waitlist (one that she did not pursue and one that ended up with an early-May offer of admission after she returned the "do you want to stay on the list" postcard), and one she ended up not applying to because she didn't really like the school after visiting. Several of her schools did not offer evaluative interviews, and her acceptance versus waitlist results there followed a pattern that could have been fairly accurately predicted based on the schools' respective reputations vis a vis her background and credentials.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, our only evaluation of a specific interview is from the student's perspective. As bright, perceptive, and all-around fabulous as our kids are, it is still possible for them to misread how the interview looks... from the interviewer's perspective.</p>
<p>My son did not click with his Brandeis alum interviewer - it went ok, not great. However, Brandeis offered him admission with the Presidential scholarship (I think this was due to his pile of science olympiad medals). His Case interview was ok - but he was admitted there, too.</p>
<p>The disappointing one was Bowdoin - got a note back from the alum interviewer that basically said he sent the best evaluation ever - and he was wl'd. WL'd at Carleton with a good interview. Ah, well, their loss.</p>
<p>I think hazmat's comment about assembling a class is important, particularly at the most selective schools. You can get all the warm fuzzies in the world at the interview, but if the college needs a hockey goalie from the west coast that also plays the tuba .... oh, well.</p>
<p>I think it's important to remember that interviewers only see a limited number of applicants, whereas the adcoms as a group deal with the whole pool; as well, the interviewers really look only at a facet of the applicant's profile. Great interviews can tip a student over the fence, but bad interviews need not be disastrous.
A friend of my H who used to interview for Harvard told us of his experience interviewing two students. One very self assured and one so shy that he wrote in his report that adcom would have to look at other parts of her application because he could not draw her out about anything. Self-assured student was rejected, shy student was admitted. Apparently, she had stellar qualifications.</p>
<p>I would agree, it's a complete crapshoot in fact I would say the interview should be dropped. The perspective students make their judgements from the tourguide, other students, online, and only minimally from the interviewer. As others have noted, you can't judge
your chances from the interview. My D was called by Middlebury as we somehow forgot to get an interview--and then was accepted!</p>
<p>My mom used to do alumni interviews, she said that she stopped because basically anyone she liked got rejected and everyone she didn't like got accepted.</p>