<p>First, I'd like to thank all the wonderful parents whose informative and thought provoking posts have taught me so much over the past few years. Now, I'd like to ask for your opinions.</p>
<p>My S is a high school senior who has had more than a few college interviews with Admissions Reps and Alumni. On several occasions, interviewers have commented on political persons or issues in either a negative or positive light and have asked my S for his impressions. Personally, my S would prefer not to discuss his political views during the interview and is concerned with how his responses might be used in the evaluation. My questions to you are the following.</p>
<p>First, do you think opinions on current politics and political figures are appropriate interview questions?</p>
<p>Second, what is the best response if you suspect that your opinions may clash with those of the interviewer's?</p>
<p>Third, if you agree or disagree with the interviewer's opinions do you think that will help or hurt you in the admissions process?</p>
<p>I'm an alumni interviewer. I would not initiate a conversation on politics, but if the student worked on a campaign, brings politics up independently, etc. the interview could go there. I have a minority viewpoint in my community and it would not bother me in the least if the interviewee clashed with me if s/he could back her/his beliefs up. If the person takes strident positions while lacking in substance, I would note that on my interview report. Agreeing or disagreeing with your interviewer shouldn't help or hurt you, but it probably makes a difference to some interviewers.</p>
<p>My D didn't say anything about what interviewers asked about, other than that it was much more relaxed than she expected.
I think that there are probably better topics, but depending on how the question is posed, politics doesn't have to be a hands off issue.
I realize it may be difficult to disagree with someone that is older/has "power" over you, but I would hope that interviewers aren't just looking for those who think like them- I think schools are usually looking for a mix of students on campus- the key point would be to show logic and thought behind your response, not that you need to change your beliefs to suit someone else.
I think whether you agree or disagree, isn't as important than that you have some reasons behind your opinion, & also that you are open to hearing another side. You are going to college to learn from your peers as much as from your profs, and being able to show that in an interview, will show you as being ready for college.</p>
<p>I think agreeing or disagreeing on substance would be irrelevant to any decent interviewer. The important thing is agreeing on style: how to argue, what constitutes a valid argument, how to make certain positions are being understood and refined rather than just trumpeted. Although it's somewhat unusual, I can't imagine a better way of showing off what a great member of an academic community you would be than to have a satisfying disagreement with your interviewer. Provided, that is, that you showed you knew how to have a productive disagreement in the kind of ways that draw people closer together and produce mutual respect. And you looked the interviewer in the eye. And you were neither cowed by the power imbalance or disrespectful of it.</p>
<p>A tough test, but great if you pass it.</p>
<p>If the interviewer is really applying a substantive screen, and the kid disagrees with that position -- well, that's a good indication that the vaunted "fit" may not be there with this particular college. </p>
<p>(Justice Rehnquist always used to ask students he was interviewing for clerkships whether they would feel more comfortable clerking for him or for Justice Blackmun. One answer was "right", the other disqualifying. However, there was no better way to get a clerkship with Justice Blackmun than to have the guts to give Rehnquist the wrong answer.)</p>
<p>I too think a political question is a bad idea - a topic area which frequently gets people riled up and can reach the non-intellectual section. A good interviewer would ask a question on a non-confrontational topic. Many here have stated they believe a good interviewer would look for a supported argument. I think a good interviewer would choose a different subject and I wonder if they are using the topic as something of a pre-screening tool. Maybe I'm too cynical...</p>
<p>I am also an alumni interviewer. I would agree that politics should not be off limits, however I have a bit of a different take on the subject. The purpose of engaging a student in this type of discussion is not to form some opinion about the substance of their political view, but to find out if they have one. I am looking to see if a student has given any thought to the world outside of themselves--whatever those thoughts might be.</p>
<p>nimby58 has a good point. I'm always impressed with kids who can articulate ANY political opinion. It says something about their maturity and awareness.</p>
<p>As another alumni interviewer, I agree with nimby that it is refreshing and impressive to find an applicant who is well informed about current events and has a well thought out fact based view on things. I rarely bring up politics per se in interviews, but usually ask interviewees if they have been following anything in the news recently and follow up on that to see how much attention and thought they have been giving to things outside their studies and personal life.</p>
<p>My S never told me what he discussed in interviews, but I imagine current events must have crept into the conversation, as it's what he lives & breathes. He only had two interviews anyway & I think as long as the student isn't penalized if his/her views happen to clash with the interviewers, it's fine to discuss a range of topics including politics (if it comes up).</p>
<p>
[quote]
it is refreshing and impressive to find an applicant who is well informed about current events and has a well thought out fact based view on things
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? That is one of the most depressing things I've read here recently. I must live in a dream world. I don't know any 17-year-olds who don't have well thought out fact-based views on some current events. Or at least on the Allen Iverson trade.</p>
<p>It drove my S crazy that he can't find peers who have info or opinions about current events. He hopes there will be more like-minded folks in college that actually read & care about what's going on in the world. In HS, most of his peers were striving to get thru their courses & college apps & ECs, with virtually no time or energy for frivolous things like world/current events.</p>
<p>It is not that my S is uninformed or has no opinion on current events. On the contrary, he is very well read and in his AP Government class he is a key contributor. But his teacher is someone he knows and trusts who encourages his students to debate all sides of an issue without penalty.</p>
<p>In a college interview, a stranger has the power to pass judgement on you. If the interviewer introduces a controversial topic and displays a strong political opinion, it is not so clear how fair minded and well intentioned he or she may be.</p>
<p>If a stranger introduces a controversial topic, I think it would be prudent for a student to discuss all sides of the issue and say s/he is still forming an opinion. This shows depth and thoughtfulness and dodges the disagreeing or brown-nosing aspects. It's probably the tack I would take in a similar situation. It is an unfair position to put the interviewee into.</p>
<p>Perhaps the interviewer is trying to see how the student reacts in a situation like that. After all, there is pretty much a 100% chance that at least one of the student's professors does not agree with said student on a given issue. It's perhaps important to know how the student will react - will he express a viewpoint of be quiet for fear of irritating an authority figure? Will he make a rational argument? Will he listen to an opposing viewpoint? Can he carry on a discussion with someone who disagrees? Colleges want students who will do these things, not clam up or be irrational. It's an interesting test.</p>
<p>It reminds me of my con law professor. He was a conservative, and I...am not. But he was a terrific professor, and he and I got into frequent discussions during class. I was one of the few to garner an A from him, and he helped me throughout undergrad. I learned a tremendous amount from him. But I wouldn't have if I'd been afraid to express my viewpoints. After all, there's not much difference between a person who controls your acceptance and a person who controls your grade.</p>
<p>I had a conversation with a scientist a few months ago. He had some great ideas which I knew could be very sensitive and we didn't go into any detail, discussion, or what they were. I did ask him, didn't the organization that hired him have first rights to his ideas. </p>
<p>"Not necessarily", he said. "There is a reason why universities do most of the leading research in America rather than the "government." </p>
<p>I said, "you do work for the government since the government funds your research."</p>
<p>"That may be so, in a round about way. The government funds the university to perform research. I do the research for the university." </p>
<p>I said, "same thing."</p>
<p>He replied, "No. Vastly different. You see if the government directly funded the research, they could also dictate who, what, how. and when that reseach can be performed. The Research would be Political, very much like the research done during the Maoist, Soviet, and Nazi eras. Private companies likewise have specific commercial goals, and they are also political because there is a profit motive and a hierarchy personnel structure. Universities are islands where scientists can be free to think without fear of political or financial consequences. That is why, the United States won the Cold War."</p>
<p>Talking politics at a college interview is OK,... But not all colleges are independent or secular. You know which colleges.</p>
<p>Most of the applicants I see for the highly selective LAC I interview for are working very hard at their schoolwork to achieve 3.8+GPAs and 2100+ SATs, as well as being involved in ECs that take up a lot of their time. So when I run across an applicant who keeps up on current events and has a well thought out opinion, based on more than a superficial reading, I am impressed. Since the LAC for which I interview has a deserved reputation for its students being active both politically and in community service, those applicants who in addition to compiling an impressive academic record are also aware of and involved in the world of events and issues seem to me to be a better fit for my alma mater, and I note that in the interview report. Knowledge of what's going on in the world and the ability to express views cogently impress me much more than someone who agrees with my political biases without the logic or rhetorical skills to back up their position.</p>
<p>Two years ago, my son, who did have an ec which related to politics, was asked in his first (EA) interview about his views on the 2004 presidential campaigns. Given that he sensed that his interviewer may have held differing views, he did feel somewhat uncomfortable (up to that point he had felt very relaxed). Nevertheless, from what he reported to me, it seemed that he handled it well: he gave his point of view, backing it up with his knowledge of issues, but also referred to a recent publication which gave an opposing perspective that really made him think. So, he definitely took a position, but discussed it in a way that was respectful of and gave credence to the other side.</p>
<p>OK, I have a question for you. If you were on a job interview and the interviewer asked you to explain and justify your political views, would you be offended and concerned or would you consider it an excellent opportunity to display your knowledge, passions and rhetorical skills?</p>
<p>Do you think that college interviews should be considered so differently from job interviews in that respect?</p>
[quote]
I must live in a dream world. I don't know any 17-year-olds who don't have well thought out fact-based views on some current events.
[/quote]
My eldest was one of those who did, and does, live and breathe current events. He was somewhat rare among his peers, which used to frustrate him. My D (youngest) is the one currently applying to colleges, and she has a fair amount of knowledge and opinion, but is defintely still in the learning stages of developing opnions and backing them up. It was frustrating to us that one of her scholarship applications asked her to pick a controversial topic and explain her opinion, and defend it. The suggestions listed were things like abortion, gay marriage, and a variety of other hotbed issues. She did not feel comfortable or qualified to write definitively about most things. It was a tough spot - and she even said, "I'm 17 years old! I don't know these things! That's why I want to go to college!" She ended up writing about English as a national language (which was not one of the "for example" topics listed, but one she felt more confident about discussing). </p>
<p>I felt it was an unfair question - not only to expect a kid to have a fully formed opinion at 17, but to have to risk losing a scholarship because the committee might have the opposing view. (And read a few of the political threads on here to see how well the "other side" determines what is a rational argument.)</p>
<p>College interviews are similar to job interviews in some ways, and different in others. Job interviews are primarily oriented to see if you can do the job. They may start out discussing your experience and education, but then focus on specific job skills and behaviors. In my company a job interview may take all day, and require the candidate to make a presentation with several interviewers present, some of whom role play hostile audience members. This is obviously much more involved than the typical 1 hour college interview. Unless the job being applied for is a political job, politics don't really fit in to the job interview.</p>
<p>A college interview is also concerned about whether you can "do the job." But the job involves thinking logically, expressing yourself clearly, being able to see different sides of arguments, appreciate different points of view, etc. A discussion of politics or current events is a great way to assess some of these things. In addition, a student body full of bookworms who pay no attention to the world outside them is not the student body that most selective colleges are trying to put together.</p>
<p>So I see no reason that politics should be off limits in a college interview, although the interviewer should not try to ram his or her political views down the applicants throat. Most college interviews are supposed to be conversational, and a good conversation is not one where one person dominates or imposes their view on the other person.</p>