<p>I did my admissions interview for Yale last Friday. I thought it went pretty well. I'm very confident and always chill in interviews, and me and the guy had a pretty good give and take. I got him laughing multiple times, and he agreed with basically everything I said about college and Yale to the point where he actually came out and told me so. I felt good afterward, but lately I have started to worry. I am very rarely ever caught off guard in a conversation, and I was able to say a lot of really profound stuff about college and education in general that I 100% believe. The problem is, I started to wonder if it came off so crisp that it seemed coached, which it wasn't. The last thing I wanted was to seem like a tape recorder of some high-priced admissions consultant that I didn't have. I am fully aware that the admissions process has a way of making you overanalyze. Do you guys think I'm just imagining things?</p>
<p>You are completely ridiculous.</p>
<p>FAIL!</p>
<p>YOUR LIFE IS RUINED!!!</p>
<p>NO YALE FOR YOU MWHAHAHAHAHA!!!</p>
<p>Chill.</p>
<p>If you think it went that great, then why would you want to believe it went worse?</p>
<p>You are indeed imagining thing.</p>
<p>The interviews are there to help...NOT to judge if he or she were too "perfect". Relax man.</p>
<p>You're not scared you did "too good" at your Yale interview. You're scared you did "too well" at your Yale interview.</p>
<p>thanks, i guess that's all i needed.</p>
<p>Understandable stress, unreasonable thoughts.</p>
<p>Good Interview = Good Interview </p>
<p>Simple as that - good luck w/ yale</p>
<p>I think the interview serves one primary purpose -- this based on reading the impressions of interviewers who post on this board:</p>
<ul>
<li>Get a sense for the person's social abilities. Will they fit in and contribute to student life, or lock themselves in a bathroom for hours at a time studying alone. How do they handle pressure? Do they have a sense of humor and grace? Will other students want to get to know them?</li>
</ul>
<p>Assuming the interviewer has access to the essay, the interviewer will be able to verify that the person in front of them speaks in the same voice as the essay. I would think an interview would go very badly for a person who used a parent or consultant to originate the idea and then polish the submitted essay.</p>
<p>dont worry... chances are high you prolly wont get in anyway... i'm not getting in and my interview is soon... interviews are pretty stupid I'd say... just wastes time</p>
<p>Was this an alumni interview? They carry very little weight in admissions. Yale even says that it is mainly for the applicant's information.</p>
<p>My father used to do alumni interviews for Yale. He's said how ridiculously overqualified most of his interviewees were, and despite whatever glowing things he might have to say, the vast majority were rejected anyway. If you are rejected it won't be because of your interview, it's just a very tough school. And if you are admitted it probably wasn't because of your interview either. Good luck.</p>
<p>people on this site need a life.</p>
<p>EDIT:YES INCLUDING ME</p>
<p>^oh come on, you have >1,000 posts</p>
<p>Doing "too good" is definitely a bad thing. "Good" is an adjective; "well" is the adverb. Unless you did "good", the opposite of "evil", by saving the day from certain destruction.</p>
<p>no but yea... beefs is right... there's a lot of nerds on this site that need to realize that if they are smart, they will do well at their job and make decent income, regardless of their undergrad school. I know nerds that graduated from harvard that make 50,000 a year because they just couldn't interact with people..etc</p>
<p>Firebird44: What heretical thinking. </p>
<p>You don't pursue a school for the INCOME. You pursue a school for the CAREER and the PURSUIT OF KNOWLEDGE.</p>
<p>When I'm applying to a school, I am not caring about what school will end up leading me to the most lucrative career. I hate the reassurances of, "but if you don't get in, don't worry, you'll still be successful!" </p>
<p>Income != success
potential success != potential income
failing to make full use of your passions => failure at life </p>
<p>Really, I'd like prefer to make 50,000 a year studying protein conformation than making 300,000 doing a mindless business management job. </p>
<p>'"Good" is an adjective; "well" is the adverb.'</p>
<p>This is elementary school pedantry ... </p>
<p>"Good" is a colloquial adverb. It functions like an adverb in certain dialects. Simply because the High Class <em>prescribes</em> "well" as the "correct" adverb does not mean that "good" cannot function as an adverb.</p>
<p>"I'm</a> doing good" - Google Search</p>
<p>290,000 results -- and that's just from the first person present progressive. (Hint: most of the results are not referring to noble altruistic acts of charity.)</p>
<p>This same pedantry would rule out songs like, "I feel good," as well.</p>
<p>^ There are some exceptions to the good vs. well rule. One such exception is the phrase "I feel good". In the OP's sentence, however, he meant "well".</p>
<p>Grammar</a> Mishaps: Good vs. Well</p>
<p>Besides, a random Google search shows popular usage, not proper usage.</p>
<p>cj_svu6:</p>
<p>you identify "popular usage" and "proper usage".</p>
<p>Language changes over time. While it is important to know proper usage in a practical sense -- people judge you by in part by your grammar -- there will come a time when the differences between good/well, I/me, who/whom will dissolve into the popular usage and the "proper usage" will seem forced and stilted.</p>
<ul>
<li>We already see literary licence to begin sentences with "And".<br></li>
<li>We already see sentences ending in prepositions, which is technically not correct.<br></li>
<li>We already see the subjunctive tense fading away -- e.g. I wish I "was" a better student vs. the correct I wish I "were" a better student..<br></li>
</ul>
<p>I noticed recently that the writer of the college admissions book "The Gatekeepers" routinely used "was" in a subjective sentence where "were" would have been correct.</p>
<p>Linguists are more concerned with how people actually communicate. To a linguist, actual communication defines the "grammar". Then we have grammarians, who prescribe how words should be used in sentences.</p>
<p>There will always be a tension between prescription and actual usage.</p>