Wow. That must represent the other side of the 80% we hear about that would be able to do the work at that particular school.
@rdeng2614 my older son got into Harvard the year they announced that they were planning on forming an engineering school and vastly expanding their offerings which was 2007. It was pretty clear he didn’t apply just for the Harvard name - he told his interviewer that he didn’t apply SCEA because it wasn’t his first choice. He was interested in Computer Science and because he was also a legacy at Harvard, and we knew that the engineering school was planning on hiring lots of new professors we thought he had a better than average chance. Harvard, at least, gets so many applications, they don’t really have to worry about whether the name is a large part of why you are applying. Once he was accepted they actually spent some effort trying to woo him to attend. The head of the CS department actually gave him a call. At this point Harvard just wants some of the best engineers to attend and not head off to the place down the river.
And as a Harvard graduate, I think there are very good reasons to go to Harvard. The residential house system, the friends you can make outside your major, the vast array of activities going on outside the classroom among them.
@baltimoreguy You wrote: " People don’t seem to accept that if they’re not in the top 6% of their class, let alone the top 6% of the country, they really don’t have much of a chance."
People have a hard time accepting this fact. Certainly, it’s not as if the kid’s HS class is a mirror of the applicant pool at Amherst, Stanford, Yale or Grinnell – being in the top 5-6% only gets the conversation started. Still a loooooong way to go.
He or she needs to be among the top sliver amongst the applicant pool’s of the target schools – a fact often lost. Beyond that, they’re clinging on to false hopes.
Have a read from this excellent post http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/12358208/#Comment_12358208
Too bad he/she is no longer active
Let’s also be clear the levels of diversity these schools bring together. It includes geography.
So if you are from a small state that typically places one kid into (insert elite school name here) each year, realistically you need to be just about the top applicant from your small state for that year.
And if you are from a huge state like California, Texas, Florida or New York, you need to realize there could be a deluge of applicants just like you - you need to stand out in that large crowd.
@T26E4, my impression from afar is that Yale has always been pretty confident with it’s own identify and success. But I’m not sure that I completely agree with your statement that “They are centuries-old institutions who do things the way they want to, beholden to no one but their own. USNWR flows off their backs.” My impression is that Princeton plays up it’s US News ranking; and Harvard is certainly very cognizant of the fact that Stanford has passed it up in the general perception of admissions selectivity.
@Planner posted a link yesterday in another thread to this 2014 article:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/10/30/stanford-vs-harvard/
Yale may be, but I don’t think Harvard is “above it all” at all.
I think they should skip the interview part, it’s very stressful to seniors to arrange fore interview when it doesn’t really matter much.
Some x-post here, but RD, 3 out of 5 of your bullets are concerned with views from the outside- increasing prestige, enhancing the image, increasing the appearance of selectivity.
Can you also consider that the U with up to 20x the number of apps as seats can simply choose those they truly do feel best fit and thrive? Each elite has its values, how it hopes students will interact, cross-pollinate, and surge forward, make best use of faculty, programs and other opps it offers- and give back, not necessarily in dollars, but in “good” their grads go off and do. They’re far more concerned with building a class that will keep their retention and grad rates up than whether they are number X for USNews.
Skip the interview? Skip a chance for someone to meet you face to face? Too much stress? Then don’t aim for the big teams.
I always assumed those are mostly to make alumni feel involved. Like the OP with his alma mater, I have a friend who interviews for Princeton and she says her rec seems not to be a factor at all. She’s been doing it for 15 years, though, so her motivation seems not to be feeling like an important part of the admissions process.
Post #27, it’s really a marketing tool. Let’s be real honest.
No, let’s be real. Ime, adcoms read the interview reports. Most are general; the interviewer, after all, is not privy to the app or certain details. But interview reports provide a first hand look at the candidate. T26E4 has a little different perspective than I do, has had his own conversations with admissions. But often, the interviewer’s take is important to the review, adds important dimension. Or underscores a lukewarm reaction.
What it cannot be, is a sole decision factor. Sure, some interviewers are baffled their great meet over coffee didn’t turn into an admit.
MIT for one, really, really cares about interviews. Your chance of being accepted without one (unless you live somewhere inaccessible) goes down a lot. Most often an interviewer won’t find anything different than is in the rest of the application, but sometimes you’ll find someone who is really arrogant or clueless. It’s still a good check.
They aren’t everything - my son’s Georgetown interviewer thought he was fabulous, but he didn’t have access to his grades or SAT scores which he knew perfectly well put the school in the reach category. And really, it was okay that the interview didn’t tip him into the accept list.
Seems like the interview is not something that can really help the applicant (except perhaps in “level of interest” at schools that care about that), but can reveal what the college considers “defects” that can tip the decision toward rejection.
I am sure everyone knows, but this book written a few years back gives a good perspective on the ‘inside process’ at an elite institution. http://www.amazon.com/The-Gatekeepers-Admissions-Process-Premier/dp/0142003085
Re:#13 - I visited Vanderbilt with my son. It would have been a huge reach, and he chose not to bother applying, but I found the admissions presentation simultaneously comical and revealing. The admissions director kept saying how holistic they were, and how stats weren’t all-important until she put up the chart for median test score ranges and declared that admission was pretty unlikely for unhooked applicants whose scores fell below the 25th percentile.
Re: #15 - My son loved UC Berkeley. He applied and was rejected, but we visited when he was still working with a first round of test scores that were definitely out of range. His first CR score had been quite disappointing (it went up 120 points the second time around), but he said that Berkeley still accepted plenty of students with similar scores. He did not want to hear me point out that many of them were probably applicants for whom English was not a native language, and others probably played great football or basketball.
^^ I remember my Columbia interview from 35+ years ago. The interviewer and I talked for 2 hours about all kinds of things, from music to medieval literature to abstract math, and I really felt like my “intellectual vitality” came across clearly. I doubt it made a difference to my getting admitted, but I will always believe it was what led to my being named a John Jay Scholar.
I think on average interviews are more likely to hurt you rather than help you. However I also think interviews are a two way street, they are both an opportunity for the school to find out more about the applicant and the applicant to find out about the school. My older son’s Harvard interviewer spent quite a bit of time arguing why Harvard was as good as MIT or at least good in different ways that even a STEM kid should consider.
You can be holistic and still only accept people with great stats. There are so many kids with great stats that other factors end up coming into play. (It was obviously silly for that Vanderbilt presentation to say stats don’t matter at all - of course they do - they are usually the first cut.) In addition, I don’t know any school that doesn’t reject plenty of kids with perfect stats for ones who are more interesting, but have somewhat less than perfect numbers.
The Gatekeepers is pretty old, but I haven’t seen any evidence that the basic process has changed much.
I disagree @mathmom. I think the average interview simply has little effect on the outcome. The OP cited an earlier thread on the parents’ forum that’s now been deleted. It discussed an article by a blogger, Ben Orlin, a teacher in England, who said he quit, in frustration, his role as a volunteer alum interviewer for Yale. In his article, he cited how little he felt his interview write ups could actually affect the outcome and other criticisms of top school admissions.
While I reject the author’s ultimate rationale and decision to stop interviewing, I concur with the fact that most interviews sway little. But for me, that’s not the point (which I’ll discuss further).
At a school like Yale, let’s assume that applicants are sorted into four groups:
- 100% slam dunks: super athletes, super development kids, major celebrities, super genius kids, etc. (very very few)
- extremely notable applicants – clearly superior even in the ultra competitive Yale applicant pool. These kids go to committee and get haggled over, eventually comprising the bulk of the admitted kids, and some get offered the wait list (small percentage)
- solid applicants – but lacking the extra attention grab of kids in pile 2 (vast majority)
- zero chancers – kids clearly outside the academic range and possessing forgettable attributes (small percentage)
Right off the bat, I assert that the interviews for kids in groups 1, 3 & 4 will have zero effect on the application outcome. 1s are basically guaranteed offers. 3 & 4 are eliminated based upon early app appraisals. I assert that interviews have meaning only for those truly on the fence – those in my hypothetical 2nd group.
What this also means for the alumni corps is that the VAST majority of their write ups will mean little. It takes an alum to have his/her eyes focused on the bigger picture to not fall into the miasma that seems to have overtaken Ben Orlin. I’ve interviewed and recruited for over 25 years for Yale; I’ve shared why my energy hasn’t waned. Firstly, I do it because I’m acting as additional eyes and ears for Yale.
Let me share this story: A few years ago, two extraordinary applications were submitted by young men in the very large, but poorly resourced, urban school district in our region. On initial read, Yale liked what it saw – but one aspect was missing: the teacher recs weren’t what the committee had hoped – not sufficient to decide yes/no. Not that the recs weren’t supportive – they were. But as often is the case with schools who don’t send kids to higher tiered colleges, the recs, while filled with praise, were formulaic and contained bromides. This isn’t uncommon and the committee decided to defer its decision. Later, when 2 extremely supportive alumni write-ups were rec’d, which certified the applicant’s superior academic potential and depth – it was all that was required for the committee to push forward an “accept” recommendation for both young men – the alumni action was heavily weighted in this circumstance.
Of course I’m aware that the numbers are against any single individual. But I interview because it also serves a purpose to (hopefully) be a positive interaction between the applicant and a live Yalie. Given the randomized nature of interview assignments, I have almost no insight on the kid’s chances before I meet him or her. I’ve had wonderful meetings with many rejected kids. I’ve had even poor meetings with accepted kids. But I want to be a good ambassador for Yale, regardless of the one individual I meet over coffee/hot chocolate. It’s PR, clearly – but for the student: not for me. After all, some do get in – and then we actively court them to choose Yale. Can’t do that if we’ve been snobs to them during the interview.
Finally, I do it b/c I enjoy meeting these striving students. Sure a dud gets thrown in occasionally but I genuinely enjoy them overall. The trap I refuse to let myself fall into is that of being some sort of personal advocate for any single student per se. It’d be unusual not to root for the super likeable/accomplished ones. But when I meet the admitted students at our spring reception, my confidence in Yale’s choice is boosted once again.
^ Good thoughts. I couple of comments:
- I agree that an interviewer should probably think of himself as additional eyes/ears for the adcom and as a face of the university to present to the student, more than as an advocate for a particular student.
- Given your 4 categories above, don't you think there are some cases where an interviewer can have an impact on group #3? There are some kids who are solid applicants, but who do end up getting in. Why? I would think that in at least a few cases, a strongly positive interview report could be a small but substantial point in their favor.
- I think it helps to think of your 4 categories in terms of rough percentage of applicants. For a school like Yale with about 30,000 applicants for 1950 acceptances (6.49% acceptance rate), there were probably only a few hundred applicants who fell into category 1 (roughly 1%). Categories 1 and 2 combined probably make up 5+% of the applicant pool. Assuming another 20% fall into category 4 ("80% are academically qualified"), and don't really have any chance; they just bolster the selectivity index and add noise to the admissions process. That leaves around 75% of the applicants falling into category 3, or roughly 22,500 applicants. Those 22,500 applicants are fighting for around 450 remaining admission spots, which is roughly a 2% admit rate; even that may be being generous. And which 2% get selected will probably be determined by the admissions committee looking at categories 1 and 2 and the existing student body and figuring out which applicants fit in best, help best to round out the student body, etc.
So I would think that the best thing an applicant can do would be to think about how to move from category 2 to category 3 - which is essentially the topic of @Hunt’s “AND” thread.