Hi everyone, after having scheduled and done a few of my college interviews, I’ve been looking around to see the weight they carry in admissions. From what I’ve gathered, for schools like HYPS and the sort, their impact is negligible unless as a detriment, and are more of a recruitment tactic than a genuine admissions factor.
That being said, why is the interview for MIT admissions is so strongly recommended for all applicants? I know they emphasize how low the acceptance rate is for non-interviewees, but why would the interview matter so much more for MIT, and none of its other hyper-selective counterparts?
If anybody has any information or any insight pertaining to this, I’d very much appreciate hearing it. Thank you!
MIT’s Educational Council is much older and larger, and well managed, than equivalent interviewing teams at Ivy Schools. For instance MIT interviewed the majority of applicant students since at least the 1970s. MIT’s Educational council is well trained, with materials developed by the MIT Admissions Office. MIT grads take the job very seriously and the tasks are specifically outlined, for the interviewer. The interviewer is graded 1-5 on every report he/she writes, by the MIT Admissions Office staff. Educational Counselors who get poor grades on their reports are coached by more experienced Regional Coordinator Counselors, so the pool of interviewers is both very skilled and very good at assessing candidates per Admission office requirements and rules.
Students that don’t meet some basic criteria (GPA, scores, curriculum difficulty )
are eliminated based on that. Many students are accepted who
may interview relatively poorly as well, so I do not see it as an overriding factor in every case. Its helpful
in some cases I believe.
Given that the interviewer has one hour with a candidate, and your teachers have four years with you. What you and your teachers say about you is more important than the interview report. The interview does help distinguish students though that all may look very similar on paper, and from similar high schools.
I believe MIT Admissions is the best admissions office in the nation, because they actually spend a lot of time reading
applications. They are well staffed and understand what a good match to MIT involves. Yet, the decisions are difficult, given the number of applicants who are all very good students on paper.
@Coloradomama Thank you very much for your reply, it was certainly more than what I was expecting! I do concur with the notion that MIT’s admissions are “better,” because for me there has always been palpable, genuine interest and caring for each applicant. Their blogs are certainly more than any applicant could ask for, and I must say it surprises me other hyper-selective schools don’t follow suit with blogs. I believe that MIT prides itself in being as transparent as possible, whereas HYPS love the ambiguous “lottery” ideal.
I will say that after a two hour interview, I did feel as though the alumni interviewer and MIT itself really did care about getting to know me beyond what is on paper. And to that, I must certainly applaud your response for hitting the nail on the head. Thank you very much!
If you look at the MIT common data set, it has a chart in there on the relative importance of various academic and nonacademic factors for admission. For MIT the only item in the very important category is “Character/personal qualities”. Test scores, grades, etc. only are categorized as important. Many parts of the application address those character and personal qualities, the interview is definitely one of those.
Also, I believe that MIT is looking for students who have a documented history of taking advantage of the opportunities afforded them. To not take advantage of having an interview would, to me, be a great black mark in that respect.
As an EC who has done many interviews, I enjoy talking to the students. The energy they show is fantastic.
