<p>texas137, I disagree, & see Xanatos' point. It seems to me that if you've made the cut for the interview round, the college knows that you're sharp enough to appreciate the lack of certitude, without having to be informed of that.<br>
I've had several job interviews over the years where there was mention -- at the end -- of the level of competition for the job. I never took it personally, whereas it would have thrown me off my balance to hear that discouraging remark at the opening. The way it was told to me was something like, 'I see you have a lot to offer & many strengths; we do have many people applying for this job with similar strengths, just to let you know.' (etc.)
I definitely think that if it belongs at all, it belongs at the closing.</p>
<p>I interviewed with an alumni for Georgetown this year as a Fall 2005 applicant for admission. The interviewer plainly told me (during the interview) and again to my dad and me (after the interview) that I shouldn't get my hopes up because the reality is that 75% of applicants are rejected by Georgetown. Judge Davis also said that it is not the school you go to that affects your future but the individuals self-worth and attitude that leads to great success. He stated that I shouldn't feel disappointed should I be rejected from Georgetown as an Early Action applicant.</p>
<p>I had quite a different take on those words; I was grateful that the alum was blunt and what he said is right: the school you attend does not determine the fate of your life; it is the individual that does affect it. This honesty I did not find offensive nor degrading.</p>
<p>You shouldn't feel bitter or disappointed that your alum interviewer told you that; it doesn't mean that you will not be accepted or they are dashing your dreams. They are pointing out the reality which you may have denied yourself from realizing. </p>
<p>And by the way, after what my alum said, a few weeks later, I got my acceptance letter from Georgetown.</p>
<p>epiphany - there's no first cut. Schools like Harvard interview everyone. That means that the vast majority of people seen by an individual interviewer will be rejected.</p>
<p>What we would do as interviewers, or what we think is polite, is totally irrelevant. The point is that interviewers can say whatever they want to, at whatever point in the interview they want to say it. And many of them choose to say something discouraging to everyone about the odds. That is not going to change. It's important for interviewees to take it as the well-intended general information it is meant to be, not as something personal.</p>
<p>texas,
i.m.o., you are the one who is actually missing the point. I don't remember any discussion about "politeness," BTW. That was hardly the point. The point was about setting an appropriate (positive) tone. There are ways to indicate the competitivess of a "contest" of any kind (job, school, whatever) that do not set up unnecessary anxiety at the start of an interview. Perhaps if the OP's interviewer had handled the remark in a more constructive manner, & with better timing, the OP would have reacted negatively to it.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but there is indeed "first cut" for many schools. Some schools say on their website specifically that they will notify a candidate if an interview is to be scheduled, based on the candidate's qualifications.</p>
<p>And I think your remark than an interviewer "can" say anything he or she says also greatly misses the point. The statement is obvious. Permission does not equal prudence.</p>
<p>the original poster wanted to know if remarks about competitiveness meant that the interviewer felt that the particular applicant was unqualified. Multiple posts followed providing evidence that there are interviewers who say that sort of thing to everyone. The initial post does not mention the college, but the whole discussion about odds makes it appear to be a highly selective one. The highly slective colleges which interview, and which are most discussed here on College Confidential, offer an interview to everyone. (Harvard and MIT come to mind)</p>
<p>The discussion about politeness started with post #11, which stated that the OP's interviewer was "mean and classless".</p>
<p>Let's say we all agree that some interviewers' remarks about admission odds set up unnecessary anxiety, or a negative tone, or a lack of "prudence", and that we wouldn't do it that way. That doesn't change the fact that there are still interviewers who are going to say things like that to everyone they interview. We cannot keep applicants from hearing it. But it's intended to be helpful (even if you or I or the OP believe it has the opposite effect). If applicants understand that some interviewers say it to everyone w/o intending it to be mean or personal, they are less likely to get flustered by it.</p>
<p>This reminds me of a scenario I deal with every day. I work in a medical setting that sometimes involves patient education. No matter how nicely the staff tries to present it, a certain percentage of patients take offense at information intended to explain their condition to them. They think the staff is saying they are too stupid to know this, or, if they have benign symptoms, they think the staff is telling them they should not have come in. The staff that is most concerned about patient care and most conscientious about patient education gets the most patient complaints. Clearly that is not at all the intention of the message! But knowing that some patients will take it negatively, should the medical staff give up all attempts to educate patients? Some actually do give it up. Does that make patients better off or worse off?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I see you have a lot to offer & many strengths; we do have many people applying for this job with similar strengths, just to let you know.' (etc.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Princeton interviewer didn't phrase it that way...he said something along the lines of, "I hope you realize it's very difficult to get into Princeton, blah blah blah, I'm sure there are plenty of schools at which you will be happy..."</p>
<p>And I agree with the point you make epiphany. Whether or not there are first cuts, these are all kids who have given four years of there lives in the (sometimes vain) hope that they will be able to get into the school of their dreams. 80-90% of them are 3 months away from getting shafted and tossed aside by these schools; I think they deserve at least a modicum of respect.</p>
<p>"I also have seen students whose Harvard application seems to carry the hopes of their entire high school or racial/ethnic community as well as their entire personal feelings of self worth."</p>
<p>See, you have to understand their view. For some schools (mine), it is so hard for teachers to watch their best and brightest continually shot down. A lot of it has to do with the fact it is so hard for middle class kids to stand out. We aren't obviously disadvantaged, and we normally aren't aware of all the academic opprotunities out there. Every now and then however, a kid comes along who has a chance, and the teachers cling on. It makes you feel proud, but at the same time doubles the anxiety.</p>
<p>KirbusPrime, it is hard for any student to stand out enough to get into places like HPYS. No matter what one's SES is, it is hard. Despite that, however, it is much harder for low SES students to stand out. I have done a lot of volunteer work in schools that are overwhelmingly filled with students who are economically poor and come from families in which neither parent has even graduated from h.s.</p>
<p>In schools like that, even kids who go on to community college or who simply get their h.s. diplomas are considered outstanding. Certainly in such environments, students have no clue about all of the academic opportunities out there. Virtually any middle class kid would have more extensive knowledge about things like college than do low income kids in such environments.</p>
<p>As for what the Princeton interviewer said, we frequently see on CC students posting who clearly are very bright, but who also have no idea about how super competitive the admissions process is at places like HPYS. There are far more such students than one might think. Frankly, the students who post here are probably more sophisticated than are many other students, including those applying to top schools.</p>
<p>Students using these kind of message boards get a lot of opportunity to see what the competition is like and how extremely selective is the admissions process. Students who are not familiar with boards like this can easily assume that if they are first in their class, they will be shoo-ins for places like HPYS. Their GCs even may assume the same.</p>
<p>Northstarmom: A breath of fresh air of reality. Attending UCLA (not a HPYS, but it'll suffice for the purpose) as a rising senior in high school in 2004, I discovered how many valedictorians and salutatorians UCLA had. Starting my senior year this school year, I could care less about the accolades received in high school, considering they are absolutely worthless to the thousands of students attending prominent universities. All excelled at their high schools; it's a rude awakening for some.</p>
<p>My brother was an alumni interviewer for Duke for some time. He stopped after becoming disillusioned with his role. He is the sort of person who really likes making a difference, and felt that he was not it the process. My H, does not care too much for him, would say he wanted a more important and compelling role in the process than he had. He did bother him a lot that kids that he felt were a great fit for Duke would get turned down despite a terrific write up from him. Duke is clear that the interview is for informational purposes and is not evaluative, and the interviewer's comments are really to maybe add info that is not on the the app. I think that in the last season that he conducted the interviews, his feelings on the matter may have come through, as the selectivity of Duke was such that nearly everyone he interviewed was rejected despite some great resumes. He was at the point where he considered the kids accepted a "freakshow of diversity" as the national jigsaw champion was admitted, other kids that stood out in some unusual way, whereas he is a great proponent of the well rounded person with a vibrant personality, the category he felt would make the school community more interesting. Right after he quit, Rachel Toors came out with her books and her "bwrks", a sort of confirmation of his theory as the many of the very kids he would have liked as Dukies were so casually dismissed. He could have been that interviewer warning so much about the selectiveness and disappointment of very qualified candidates.</p>
<p>"I have done a lot of volunteer work in schools that are overwhelmingly filled with students who are economically poor and come from families in which neither parent has even graduated from h.s."</p>
<p>Your experience comes from volunteering with these kids, many of these kids are my best friends... Even though my school is middle class, we have many poorer areas. In fact, my one friend PAYS THE BILLS. His dad has terminal cancer and his mother abandoned the family, so he works insane hours to take care of his dad. I understand how hard it is for these kids... that's why my family feeds them. This football season, we fed the entire football team (mostly poorer kids) almost every day. So I completely understand that it is hard for them. But in the same token, it isn't so easy for middle class kids either. A lot of my friends have divorced parents, need to work low paying jobs to have spending money, and don't have the opprotunities to do something outstanding. How can they be world-class musicians when they need to spend their money on gas instead of lessons? My point was that every now and then someone truly outstanding comes along. Teachers aren't stupid. They know when a kid is outstanding. For example, one of the kids in our school is a two time national medalist in olympic style weightlifting. Now, there is no way that you can tell me that is only good in a local context. There are only about 15 of those kids in the country every year (given weightclasses) and I'm positive they all aren't applying to Harvard.</p>
<p>I guess my point is this: You really discount the middle class. It is MUCH harder for them to be outstanding than an upper-class kid, and that really isn't fair.</p>
<p>Kirbusprime, I understand what you are saying, and the top schools do take into consideration the environment the kid comes from in assessing his achievements. I do want you to know, however, that not all achievements are considered equally. The college's wishlist generally consists of what the school needs or wants. The olympic weightlifter is not going to benefit a college as much as an ace quarterback if that is what the football team needs. Or maybe a departement needs an infusion of students. Maybe the orchestra wants th</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for what the Princeton interviewer said, we frequently see on CC students posting who clearly are very bright, but who also have no idea about how super competitive the admissions process is at places like HPYS. There are far more such students than one might think. Frankly, the students who post here are probably more sophisticated than are many other students, including those applying to top schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Given what he said and given the context (4 EDs from my school accepted), it came down as more condescending than anything else. Of all my interviewers, I thought that that guy was the biggest jerk overall, anyway.</p>
<p>He's also a recruited football player. Well he was, he was recruited and then Harvard found someone taller, even though he wasn't as good of a football player. Athletic recruiting can be a bear...</p>
<p>And this is also what makes everything sad... A kid can do what he loves, achieve at the HIGHEST level at it, and be rejected just because his interests didn't coincide with the college's. I guess he should have given up what he loved and learned to play an instrument...</p>
<p>"A kid can do what he loves, achieve at the HIGHEST level at it, and be rejected just because his interests didn't coincide with the college's. I guess he should have given up what he loved and learned to play an instrument...
"</p>
<p>To me, that statement is ridiculous. None of us are guaranteed to get exactly what we want. For instance, just because an adult pursues a passion doesn't mean that the person will end up working in their dream job for a specific Fortune 500 company.</p>
<p>If your acquaintance played football and did extraordinarily well, I would be very surprised if he didn't end up at some college where he could use his talent. If he hadn't bothered to play football at all, clearly, he would not have been able to play football at virtually any college. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, if he had played a musical instrument, there's no indication that he would have been good enough to have used it as his ticket into the college that turned him down. Because learning musical instruments is so popular with Asian immigrants, and because they do so well as a group when it comes to grades and scores, music is the most popular EC among applicants to Harvard. That's probably the case for many other top colleges. Thus, simply learning an instrument is not likely to make one stand out in admissions.</p>
<p>"I guess my point is this: You really discount the middle class. It is MUCH harder for them to be outstanding than an upper-class kid, and that really isn't fair."</p>
<p>Life isn't fair. We all need to deal with it. I'm middle class. I know that my kids did not have opportunities that wealthier people did. I still know that my kids got far more opportunities than did kids from uneducated, impoverished families. </p>
<p>I am not going to waste my time complaining that life isn't fair. That's simply reality.</p>
<p>"Life isn't fair. We all need to deal with it."</p>
<p>Replace life with college admissions and it looks like I've made my point.</p>
<p>Kirbus - "fairness" has never been a goal of college admissions. Admissions to elite colleges are much more "fair" now than they were 40 years ago, if you define fairness as merit-based rather than based on which prep school you went to. And even though Harvard cannot accept everyone who wants to go there, there IS a college slot for everyone who wants to go to college in the US, which is very different from most of the world. All in all, I wouldn't pick US college admissions as a particularly egregious example of the vagaries of life.</p>
<p>US elite college admissions</p>
<p>My scores are low and Harvard interviewers didn't even suggest anything about my chances. Maybe its because they could tell I was realistic about my slim to none chances. lol</p>