Inserting Politics into College Interviews

Parents Forum
21

<p>dadx3,</p>

<p>I understand and respect your point of view. My S chose not to apply to highly competitive LACs because he felt that most were too politically homogenous for him to feel comfortable, especially in a small school.</p>

<p>I'd like to take the last sentence in your first paragraph and substitute the word college for job because this sums up how we feel about the issue.</p>

<p>Unless the college being applied for is a political college, politics don't really fit into the college interview.</p>

22

<p>Sorry for the spelling error,</p>

<p>I meant homogeneous, not homogenous. </p>

<p>P.S. My son just received a likely letter from UNC Chapel Hill OOS!</p>

23

<p>I was very concerened about it. But the political views does not matter as long as student can back up with logical point of view. In addition studennt must not to show any kid of bias which put race or religion or anything which brushes everyone with a same brush of stroke. Afterall, all people from different background can bring different view point and add to community, provided they are not narrow minded and bigot.</p>

24

<p>Myriad: I happen to agree with you. When my son came out of the interview I described above, my reaction was the same as yours. While he did fine, I felt, and still feel now that it puts the student in a needlessly difficult position, and this might well limit how he/she handles the question. In other words, the student may, justifiably or not, fear the interviewer's negative reaction to their views, and therefore hold back in responding. This, in turn, could give the interviewer the wrong idea about how well thought out the student's views are, or how knowledgeable the student is. Anything that has that inherent risk is not in the service of the school getting a true picture of the student. Thare so many other vehicles toward this end that politics can easily be left out.</p>

25

<p>Thanks for all the insightful replies and helpful suggestions. I believe that good people can and will disagree on what role if any politics should play in college interviews and admissions.</p>

<p>College Confidential is important because it allows people on opposite sides of the admissions process (applicants and their families vs. admissions staff and alumni interviewers) to read each other's minds in a non-threatening and relaxed environment.</p>

26

<p>Personally, as an applicant, if I were to be given a political question, it may be a difficult situation and like people said, it's probably mainly to see if you can form your opinion based on facts. In a lot of ways, I don't see it being a "negative" thing. Instead, it gives you a lot of "positive" things. To every political question, there is always two sides. No only can you show that before making a decision, you can consider two sides, you also know what each side will bring, aka what are the consequences of these political decisions. Thus it shows not only your logical thinking, but also your ability to use information in society to form your own opinions. It is actually a question that bring out a lot of positives for you and it gives you a lot to work with: maybe experiences you've had dealing with the issue, things you've read, etc.</p>

27

<p>My daughter also happens to be one of those people that eats, breathes and sleeps politics and current events.(Plus she has several politcally-related EC's) During an interview this past fall, politics did come up. Whereas I would have felt somewhat uncomfortable in that situation, D felt that it gave her a chance to shine and demonstrate her passion for and knowledge of current newsworthy issues. From what she told me afterward, the interviewer seemed genuinely interested in what she had to say, and she felt that the interview was a success.</p>

28

<p>"Agreeing or disagreeing with your interviewer shouldn't help or hurt you, but it probably makes a difference to some interviewers."</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>I just wanted to note that while these statements make sense and are ideally true, I remember seeing some studies awhile back indicating that even the best interviewers tend to prefer those who agree with them. Unfortunately, interviewing is an art and, to be quite honest, it's not nearly as objective an evaluation as we tend to assume. From the research I have done in social psychology, it seems to me that disagreeing with an interviewer--regardless of how strong your support--could be detrimental, but perhaps not. Maybe someone will do a study on college interviews and agreement. The studies I have seen were specific to job interviews, so there are bound to be differences...</p>

29

<p>This is just an interview question to test an applicant"s communication skills,diplomacy and passion. What a great way to learn about an individual applicant"s ability to contribute to discussion based classes.</p>

30

<p>The answer probably is not seen as right or wrong, but is judging the method of delivery as well as the maturity of the student. I bet that this question was posed by a liberal arts college rep. Do you really want your child in a class of students who only state what the prof wants to hear?</p>

31

<p>I never ask about politics when interviewing applicants, but I do let them discuss political issues if they bring it up. As suggested by others, I am not particularly interested in their viewpoint, but in their commitment to their cause. </p>

<p>Although I have encountered quite a few students who are passionate about their beliefs, I have met only one whom I would describe as well informed, and that only on the narrow area of her deepest interest. </p>

<p>Remember, we are talking about high school students. If a kid reads the NY Times everyday, that is commendable, but they are likely to have done that for a couple of years at most. Adults who are interested in politics have been reading the news carefully for decades. They are likely to have read more books on political matters than the most studious high school student have read books total. The adult may know so much more about economics and statistics that it is difficult to have a discussion on many political issues without it turning into a lecture. </p>

<p>One cannot have a discussion on, say global warming, without knowing something beyond the AP course level about physics, chemistry, and biology, but very few high school students are at that level. </p>

<p>So I do not expect a high school student to be knowledgeable, and that is not the standard I apply. On the other hand, I am very careful about including mention of the students political views in the interview report, because I don't know how the person reading the report will react. So if the applicant is an officer in a political club, I discuss the activities and responsibilities that entails, the time commitment, and the accomplishments, and leave the viewpoint out.</p>

<p>For the same reason, I suggest caution for students when discussing politics with interviewers. No matter how open-minded the interviewer may appear you never know what they are really thinking, it is easy to make yourself appear foolish when confronted with the gap in knowledge and experience, and you have no idea who might read the report that ensues.</p>

32

<p>"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."</p>

<p>Binx, I would take this as an indication that this particular college is not the best fit for her.</p>

<p>This thread brings up the larger issue, one which concerns me deeply, that the college application process has become a sales job, and one where a student feels she must market herself to a college. The applicant is the object, and the college is the subject. </p>

<p>It reminds me of a boy on CC a year or so ago, a top student with outstanding stats, who was rejected by every college he applied to. Basically he applied to the usual HYP etc. After a year of life experience, he chose very differently the next time around, researched thoroughly, did a lot of self-reflection, chose a completely different batch of colleges, ended up with several good options, and is now happy at a well-fitting school.</p>

<p>We need to encourage our kids to think about who they are and what they are seeking in an educational experience, while taking rank and status out of the equation. I’m afraid this is harder to do with high-achieving students who are trained to please the teacher and answer the question the right way. The whole posting-your-stats phenomenon on this board feels like a meat market. </p>

<p>And with the cost of college these days, it’s more difficult to view it as a formative experience rather than as a commodity. We want bang for our buck--results, but I think such an attitude creates a stilted and stressful approach to college selection and application.</p>

<p>I want our kids to do the choosing. Not to feel they must mold themselves to someone else’s ideal. Of course, like any relationship, there’s a give and take, a seeking and finding, a choosing and being chosen. We can’t all want Brad Pitt! And if you got a date with him, wouldn’t the thrill be just to tell people you dated him? Rather than that he’s such a brilliant conversationalist or an enlightened being or the perfect partner or whatever. (I know, lame example.)</p>

<p>My point is, kids need to present their best authentic selves to the colleges which fit them best. If they do their research, lots of self-reflection, and choose well, they’re bound to end up at a school right for them, without a ton of anxiety and stress. They’ve already done the selecting. They’re the subjects more than the objects. If a kid is not ready to do this inner work, maybe they should go to community college for a year, take a gap year, work, travel, volunteer....until they’re better able to take on this responsibility.</p>

33

<p>afan,</p>

<p>What a great post! I agree with almost everything you said. The only statement that popped out at me was, "If a kid reads the NY Times everyday, that is commendable, but they are likely to have done that for a couple of years at most."</p>

<p>Growing up in NYC, my family did read the NY Times everyday and we believed that it was the only "intelligent" NY newspaper. Today, many years later, my new family thinks that the NY Times is often biased and even though the words are impressive, the content doesn't always live up to the words.</p>

<p>In our minds, it is unfair to assume that the smartest, most intellectual and knowledgeable people read newspapers X, Y and Z.</p>

34

<p>ahimsa,</p>

<p>In theory, I agree with your argument, but in practice I do not. </p>

<p>My son applied to lots of different schools and viewed many application questions. Some were more political than others. He didn't mind overtly political questions, if the college also provided alternatives. </p>

<p>Today, many colleges and universities are upfront that social activism is a very important part of their mission; that is their right. Each of these schools implements their mission in their own unique way.</p>

<p>However, if I were to design my own Fantasy College or University, it would accept promising students with a full range of political and other beliefs and its goal would be to provide the best impartial education possible. It would not feel the need to promote its own ideological agenda regardless of how noble the motivations.</p>

<p>Unfortunately for our family, the Myriad Fantasy College does not exist and my son is eager to attend college, so he needs to make choices. Although political diversity is an important issue for him, it's not the only one. Applicants need to decide based on a number of factors, which schools they would like to apply to and attend. For a school that might be a great academic fit but not a political one, I would never discourage a student from applying if he felt that the pluses outweighed the minuses; although I might council him to review the issue once he is accepted.</p>

<p>If a student chooses to apply to a school that is not a good political fit because she likes the school for other reasons, I would not criticize her for not being 100% honest and upfront with the college about her political views.</p>

35

<p>most in the college admissions game seem to want diversity/tolerance...but they are quite intolerant/uninterested in students with political positions different than their own.</p>

36

<p>When I had my interview for UChicago politics came up, but I stated my opinions. I also freely admitted when I didn't know much about the topic, which happened to be Eastern European Politics. My interviewer was very pleased that I could hold my own, especially because my views were contrary to his own. A few minutes after my interview began I could tell that my interviewer was one to the respect other people's opinions. (BTW I got into UChicago, so I guess he liked my opinionated-ness)</p>

<p>I think it's one of those things in which you need to assess the situation. My other interviews did not get nearly as political, but I wasn't going to be the one to bring it up. (Though I did end up talking about religion with one of my interviewers... but that's another topic)</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
NY Times is often biased and even though the words are impressive

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I chose that paper because, like it or not, it is pretty much the default newspaper of the informed public in the US. Hence the term "newspaper of record". Most serious political debate in the US assumes the reader is familiar with what gets published in the Times. That does not mean one agrees with the editorial viewpoint, just that one reads it. Does not assume this is the only paper one reads, most informed adults read at least two. The Wall Street Journal holds a similar position for business news reporting. Like it or not, it is the standard.</p>

<p>I also chose it because of the reading level required. Not many junior high students could read it. Same for the New Yorker, Foreign Affairs, Scientific American, and other magazines written for college-educated adults. </p>

<p>All news sources are biased. It would be difficult to find a general circulation publication in the US that would not be considered hopelessly biased toward capitalism by many readers in China, or hopelessly anti Islamic fundamentalist by Taliban readers. Newspapers land somewhere in the popular continuum for their readers. If they stray too far outside those bounds, the readers look elsewhere. The Times gets accused of bias from those in both major parties. So it is somewhere in the middle, too far to the left for some people and too far to the right for others.</p>

38

<p>afan,</p>

<p>My New Year's resolution was to not write any additional posts for this thread, but since it's still 2006 I'll add just one more.</p>

<p>Thank you for responding to my criticism of the NY Times. Once again, I really enjoyed reading your post and agreed with about 95% of what you wrote.</p>

<p>Where we quibble is on your last two statements. "The Times gets accused of bias from those in both major parties." Where did you read this, in the NY Times? And,</p>

<p>"So it is somewhere in the middle, too far to the left for some people and too far to the right for others." I'll agree to disagree on what is the middle.</p>

<p>Sorry to be a pain, it must be the curmudgeon in me, no offense meant to anyone. Have a Happy New year!</p>

39

<p>sorry, afan, but i'm going to have to throw the red flag. </p>

<p>Your whole point is based on the moral relativism philosophy.... no absolutes...everything based on social/cultural circumstances. Just because the Tailaban would oppose the NY Times does not allow you to spin this as if the Times is in the center. </p>

<p>--"The Times gets accused of bias from those in both major parties" --</p>

<p>I don't remember the last the Democrats accused the Times for getting cozy with the Bush administration. Of course there is going to be an article slanted to the right, but for every one of those, there are 10 way way left. </p>

<p>--"Well, I chose that paper because, like it or not, it is pretty much the default newspaper of the informed public in the US. Hence the term "newspaper of record". Most serious political debate in the US assumes the reader is familiar with what gets published in the Times."--</p>

<p>When did we get so high and mighty?</p>

40

<p>Well of course there are no absolutes. We are talking about being at one extreme, the other, or in between, in a range of political opinion. There are no absolutes in political opinion, so there can be no absolutes in this discussion. Since there are people well to the right of the Times and people well to the left of the Times, the Times is in the middle. I am not sure what about this disturbs people. Just because you may not like where the Times comes down on issues does not mean it is at an extreme. </p>

<p>Of course the Democrats do not criticize the Times for being hard on Bush. They criticize it for being hard on the Democrats, or for being soft on Bush. Think about the noise surrounding its decision to hold publication of the facts about domestic surveilance. The left went crazy about that, while the right were enraged that it published it at all. </p>

<p>I am not sure I understand the objection here. Is it your contention that everyone in the US is to the right of the Times? If so, that would put the Times on the left extreme, but it would make it very difficult to explain election results. Why didn't the Republicans win with 100% of the vote? Is it your contention that everyone in the US is to the left of the Times? If so, why didn't the Democrats win every House and Senate race?</p>

<p>I did not make up "newspaper of record", and I certainly did not make up the assumption that informed persons are familiar with what gets published in the Times. There have been numerous reports of where Washington politicians get their news, what summaries they receive everyday, where they try to place interviews and opinion pieces. The Times is always at the head of these lists. If you are debating that, then you really need to do some homework.</p>

<p>Another example. Look at the record of Pulitzer prize awards, and ask which paper leads the list. Now of course the Prizes are selected by the leftist faculty of Columbia, so one could cite this as evidence of bias. But I am not arguing against bias, I am arguing prominence. It is difficult to refute the prominence of the Times, so I suppose that is why people who do not like it raise the bias issue. </p>

<p>But complaining about bias is really saying "I wish it had not published that article", rather than "that article was factually inaccurate". As long as it maintains its standards for reliability- I can trust the standards required before something gets published as fact in the Times- then it is worth reading. Same for the WSJ, with a very different veiwpoint on the part of the editors. That does not mean that all things published as fact are true. It means that there are reliable standards for the quality of evidence before things get published. Reporters can lie, or be lied to, but it few people can cite examples in all these debates of bias on where the Times report was wrong and they knew it was wrong when they published it.</p>

<p>By the way, this discussion is precisely why I advise avoiding politics in interviews. Just mentioning the most prominent newspaper in the country makes some people upset, and arguing that, because they do not like what it reports, then it cannot be the most prominent paper. A logical fallacy, but firmly held by some. "The most prominent paper must be the one I like". Oh, why is that?</p>