@t26E4 Actually I don’t disagree, the vast majority of the time the interview doesn’t do anything but support what’s already in the application. What I meant is that a fabulous interview is unlikely to help you if the rest of the application isn’t good enough, but a terrible interview could sink an otherwise viable application.
I know that northstarmom who used to post here, interviewed for Harvard. She occasionally caught kids lying about accomplishments and said from time to time she got calls from the admissions office with questions about the kids she interviewed.
Seems like what was described in #38 is that groups 1 and 2 are more numerous than the total number of admits, so groups 3 and 4 have essentially no chance. Also, #38 suggests that an interview may help mitigate a minor weakness in a group 2 application (the example). However, it is certainly possible that a poor interview can be a significant defect that moves a group 2 applicant to the reject list, and that a good interview probably has no real effect on most group 2 applicants.
Note that the weakness in the application in the example in #38 shows how the process is stacked against those from more disadvantaged high schools – the applicant depends on recommenders making good recommendations, but recommenders in disadvantaged high schools may not be experienced enough to make good recommendations, at least for elite colleges. I.e. that the applicants needed the top end interview performances (not necessarily a given for low SES applicants who may not have high SES mannerisms that the alumni interviewers may expect) indicates that the recommendations (even if favorable) can be an additional hurdle.
I look at admissions at the most selective colleges a lot like putting together a college football team. They want the incoming class to: 1) Not have one position over represented (diversity) 2) Have some “big names” with great stats to gain publicity and keep the alumni on board (high rankings) 3) Beat out conference rivals who were recruiting some of the same players (selectivity) 4) Be of good character and represent the college well (public perception) 5) Be good teammates and make everyone around them better (make the college community better) 6) Stay and be loyal to the program even after they graduate (contributing alumni). Of course at the highest level of college football almost all is a distant second to talent.
@ucbalumnus, I agree that @T26E4’s original description made it seem that no one from group #3 would get admitted to schools such as Yale. But that doesn’t really seem to be the case, as every year there are applicants who don’t seem to have any dominant traits that do get in.
Regarding the “football team” analogy, I think that schools are going to go after “core” students first - hooked applicants and kids in group #1 and then group #2 - especially in the EA/ED round. Harvard took almost half their class in REA last year (probably more after the yield sorted out), Yale almost 40%. I can’t imagine anyone from groups 3 or 4 being accepted ED/EA. But then in RD I can see filling out the “back end” of the roster with some complementary students.
I’m guessing that most students in groups #1 and #2 apply EA/ED somewhere, many of them REA/SCEA to HYPS. I suspect the majority of RD applicants are from groups #3 and #4, with some cross-application from students who applied REA/SCEA to one school applying elsewhere to test the waters. I suspect that admissions in the REA/SCEA round is focused on adding top talent, and that in the RD round there is also some consideration about balancing out the class and meeting as many institutional needs as possible.
I am not sure you are correct. One applicant I interviewed stood out because of his high level of compassion, his sense of what is right or wrong, and his emotional maturity. He was to me, a real American hero. I certainly cannot take credit for his acceptance to my Ivy but the interview did not hurt.
My alma mater actually asks that we ask our applicants if anything has changed since they submitted their application. Sometimes they have won a prestigious award, experienced a major life changing event, or … So in those cases the interview report might just give a bit of relevant info.
Referring to @renaissancedad’s last post, Around 85% of the students who applied EA to top schools will be out sending apps to the other schools along with some of the 15% who got accepted. I suspect that most of the 85% are extremely well qualified but there weren’t enough spots.
@renaissancedad I think we’re getting too focused on my “4 group” example. In the scenario you’re proposing, in my mind, that talented kid whom you might ascribe as outwardly looking like other Group 3 people – is simply in group 2 according to my model. That’s all.
In no way am I trying to say this is the exact method how schools work – it was simply for my illustrative purposes as far as those most likely to be affected by interviews.
^ I’m just guessing, but I don’t think there are 20-25,000 applicants (approximately the total number who apply REA/SCEA to HYPS) who meet @T26E4’s group 1 and 2 classification. We’ve seen plenty of “chance me” threads from group 3 applicants who want to test the waters. I suspect the majority of group 1 and 2 applicants will get in REA/SCEA. Certainly there will be some superbly qualified applicants who don’t get in during the early round for whatever reason, or who apply elsewhere early (MIT), and many extremely strong applicants who do get in will want to see how they fare at other schools.
Edit: @T26E4, I apologize if I’ve taken things further than you intended.
Just saying, in RD, most of #4 group is out at first cut. That can be a substantial percentage. (IMO, an issue wth the common app. Others may disagree). Then the bulk of the remainder is group 3, (solid, not clearly compelling,) which I thought T meant when he noted the “vast majority.”
When. Y daughter interviewed with MIT, little was asked about herself and her ECs, but I remember she told me he asked if she applied to Harvard, lol, then went on to brag or recounted how wonderful his experience at MIT, his daughter at Harvard. Same with Princeton review, it was a young graduate and she was selling her school, very little about my kid. Maybe a small group of students should be interviewed and not gazillions of them.
I agree, it seems like selective schools should have some sort of a high level, maybe automated screening process that identifies kids who should be interviewed. Selective interviews only. Isn’t this the way it works in grad school applications? If there are some kids who make it to the final round who weren’t on this list, perhaps interview them at a later date if their file is read and it is compelling.
A highly selective school (<15% acceptance rate) that my son is considering has another approach. If a student wants an interview, they need to get their application in by an earlier date. Some time in December. Presumably if a student gets their application in early, this shows a higher level of interest and also shows that they have read the fine print of the application requirements and options. It also enables the school to get these applications in weeks earlier than the 1/1 deadline, therefore helping the admission staff in spreading out the stream of applications. I don’t think interviews are offered to students who do not meet the earlier deadline.
@Jennings99 It’s slowly changing but given the short windows, colleges have no opp to pre-sort applicants before shooting them out to area alumni interviewing groups. I can tell you that for my area, we assign students as they arrive in the coordinator’s web portal. We assign up to about 90% capacity of interviewer slots. This generally covers about 80% of applicants. Those remaining 20% or so simply can’t be covered. Too many kids applying.
What happens is later in the interviewing season, our coordinator may get a call – “Can you make sure Joe and Suzy get an interview?” Joe or Suzy might be part of the 80% but the interview report simply may not have been submitted or the interview is scheduled but hasn’t occurred. Then all is good. But if Joe or Suzy are part of the 20%, unassigned to anyone, the coordinator then assigns them to last minute, but reliable interviewers – because Joe and Suzy were specifically requested by the home office. Obviously the committee wants something from the local alum about Joe or Suzy. This indicates is that Joe and Suzy are on the fence. Might get an offer, might not. Even if Joe or Suzy eventually never get interviewed, might get an offer, might not.
From what I’ve seen, this is the only level of pre-sorting my college does. I’m part of a group which covers a large metropolitan area. I would think it’s typical but I can’t attest to other colleges.
Doesn’t anyone else think there are positives to a very smart and accomplished 18 year old meeting with alumni of prestigious schools in what amounts to an interview of sorts? If you can’t hack an interview and don’t meet the cat 1 or 2 criteria, why are you applying to these schools in the first place?
My D went to 4 or 5 of these in schools she did not end up getting accepted to, but I think she actually enjoyed most of the meetings. These were reach to super reach schools in top 20, she was qualified, but probably a 3 …
Sometimes we think our kids are fragile or will have their feelings hurt but in reality an 18 year old should understand that a school with less than 10% acceptances is a reach and not fall apart when the inevitable happens.
OF course she already had a great acceptance in her pocket and is a very well adjusted kid.
Similarly, if a kid thinks they are Yale material but really struggles to write a few essays … I am really confused. These are people who profess to be elite … and get mighty mad when they are not chosen … but the essay topic “Why Yale” or a 500 word essay on a life experience (and they are 18 not 8) is just too much to ask !
If you can’t hack an interview and don’t meet the cat 1 or 2 criteria, why are you applying to these schools in the first place? That’s pretty much my "tough"view. (I have an understanding view, as well.) You wanna go up against 30-40k other bright kids, many with 4.0+ and the other attributes- and there are only 2000 seats available- then you’d better have some spine and the goods behind it, as many as you can. And you’d better know what matters to those judges. You’d better be the sort who knows to consider what “they” are looking for, can process that. Or at least have your eyes wide open that you’re just making any old stab.
When you do run into a great kid, up against those other thousands, what matters isn’t the nicey-nicey, “Oh, you’ll be fine,” or “Just be yourself.” Or the bogus advice to cure cancer or starts a club. The best advice helps a kid take what he does have and apply it properly. Helps him identify what may be missing and fix that. Helps him think on a level more than what worked in his high school classes or for papers.
I thought the interview process was good for my kids. The fact is learning to talk to strangers is an important skill, migh as well get started on it. I agree “Just be yourself” isn’t very helpful advice, but neither should you go into contortions just because you want to go to ___ college. It’s more about tweaking yourself, or putting yourself in your best light. One thing we did with our kids was show them the Common Application at the end of sophomore year, so they would know if there were any big holes that they would like to consider filling.
@renaissancedad Excellent post. I too have thought a lot about this topic. From the colleges’ point of view it is, “What have you done for me lately.” I also think about college admissions as casting a Broadway musical. They need different types and talents to fill different roles so that the entire cast comes together in harmony.
Yes. Alumni interviews are for the alumni, not for the students—except on the outside fringes. If a student comes to the interview not having showered in a week and spends the whole time talking about his weapons cache, the college will want to know.
Dang, another brewing “CC consensus.” This time, that interviews are just for alum stroking. Last time it was that elite interviews are just informational and/or to sell the college to kids who’ve already applied. What’s next?
Imagine this: they read the interview reports and, although some interviewers are not great, usually the reports offer a needed extra angle on the kid. After all, those alums are the eyes and ears on a kid. They have a conversation, they offer feedback.
On a somewhat related note - does legacy really matter? I know it does if there’s a building on campus with your last name on it, or if you parents are major donors… but for the person whose parents never or rarely contribute, does it make a difference?
