A recent WSJ article claims some elite colleges spend less than 8 minutes reviewing an application (https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-elite-colleges-review-an-application-in-8-minutes-or-less-1517400001). However, interviewers (for colleges that conduct interviews) would typically spend at least 45 minutes with an applicant. An interviewer would know more about an applicant than an AO when it’s all said and done. For the most selective colleges that try to interview most applicants, only 1 in 10 (maybe even 1 in 20) interviews would result in an acceptance. Interviewers must be frustrated with the amount of time they spent and wasted. Undoubtedly some of them are quitting and the remaining interviewers would have to conduct more interviews. I don’t see how this could be sustainable.
Here is a whole discussion on it you might want to join.
Personally, I don’t think it is unreasonable. And interviewers have had the experience for years that students they recommend don’t get in.
I think most schools see alumni interviews as a sop to alums, so that they feel involved and donate money. They don’t actually need the alumni interviews (which are wildly inconsistent anyway, so not very useful).
^^^^This. Alumni interviews are more for the alumni than for the student. It’s an alumni organization activity. I think it’s important for admissions ONLY on the fringes – if the candidate is so completely “off” (doesn’t talk at all during the meeting, uses profanity, says he really doesn’t want to go to that school but his parents are making him apply, brings a gun to the interview, etc.) the admissions people would need to know.
Yet, I have friends who do alumni interviews and write glowing letters of recommendations for kids who ultimately do not get in. It’s becoming the norm and it feels like a waste of time to spend an hour with these amazing kids, write a stellar rec and then no one they meet ever gets in.
I have done alum interviews for my undergrad college. I know full well that not all of the applicants will ultimately complete the entire application, and of course a certain number will be rejected. My alma mater makes it clear that our jobs are to 1) help students who can’t visit campus get additional information about the institution, and to 2) provide additional feedback on the student that otherwise might be missed - essentially, a thumb up/down that the admissions office is fully free to ignore.
Alums are generally busy people and they’re doing interviews for the love of their alma mater. Perhaps colleges should rethink the interview process to better utilize this limited resource.
Evidently, colleges don’t think it is all that limited or all that valuable to their admissions process. Nobody is forcing alums to volunteer. . . .
There is a good deal of misinformation in this thread. The importance of alumni interviews differs by university. Some value them more than others. Some schools have standard questions and those answers, like essays, are read by admissions committees. It’s simply more information for the school. I have done alumni interviewing and the school lets us know the results. I haven’t heard of any schools that interview students that haven’t applied. Mine only interviews students that get by there first hurdle. In some respects, they help a school with yield as they look to determine which candidates are motivated to attend the school as opposed to being accepted. I doubt its a coincidence that the ones rated the most highly gain admission. If you think they are worthless, then just don’t do them. My advice is that if you are chosen to be interviewed, accept the interview and prepare for it.
As far as time admissions committee spends on each applicant, it depends and you can’t take an “average”. Some might only be two minutes because grades and test scores miss the mark. Some schools do more than one round. Admissions processes are different depending on the school and you cannot compare smaller schools to larger state universities who rely more on statistical information.
@frozencustard has a point. Some of my interviews were just casual conversations but for others, it was quite clear that the interviewer was reading questions from a sheet and writing down each of my responses.