<p>I've done a college interview before, but it was on campus with an admissions person. This Monday I am meeting with an alumni at a Starbucks. I don't really know what to expect.</p>
<p>So, should I get to the Starbucks early, order, and then wait at a table? Or do I wait inside for him to come and then order? But then we'd awkwardly stand in the line together. Do we even have to order anything?</p>
<p>Also, my alumni interviewer is a congressman. He's not nationally famous, but around here he is relatively well-known. Would this change anything at all? And since he's a conservative politician should I refrain from sharing my passion for conservation and the environment?</p>
<p>I recognize I'm way too nervous, but any advice you could give would be helpful.</p>
<p>Mmm… I would get there early, buy a drink, and find a seat. Since you have probably seen his picture and know what he looks like, you can just wave to him when he comes in and looks around. Then you don’t have to awkwardly stand in line. Since you KNOW his political leanings and he will be reporting back to the school on you, I guess I would stay away from political topics and maybe steer toward other topics besides the environment… Be sure you have a few questions for him about his experience at the college, what he liked and didn’t like, advice he has for success if you are admitted. All politicians love to talk – honestly, if you have questions that allow him to talk a lot, he might come away saying it was a great interview!</p>
<p>The environment thing worries me, though, because conservation biology is what I want to pursue as a career. I’m sure he’ll ask what I want to do after college.</p>
<p>Just because a person has conservative leanings, don’t prejudge him to have a bias against your views. He wants to see if you have justification for your views and possibly your opinions of the competing issues in the area of conservation biology, if they come up. Are you going to just ape pat answers or have you thought through carefully the many sides to the issue? Do you know what the the beliefs and motivations are for the “other side” or are you blindly partisan? </p>
<p>What about studies that say wildlife preserves have less bio-diversity than managed or developed areas? What role should foresters, fishermen, hunters & developers have? What are their concerns? Should controlled burnings happen in US national parks? etc.</p>
<p>If I were interviewing you, I’d like to see evidence that you’re thoughtful, not just opinionated.</p>
<p>He’s not acting as a doorkeeper to his alma mater, he wants to report on the motivation, character and intellectual curiosity of a HS applicant to them.</p>
<p>I think you have nothing to worry about if you’ve thought through why you believe what you believe. Relax and enjoy the time.</p>
<p>Well, you probably have to be willing to explain that, then. I mean, don’t tell him you want to go to work for the EPA. I would have a brief explanation of what you want to study in college, and that you are considering a career in conservation biology. Does the college have any specific programs you are interested in (bio programs abroad, etc.)? Maybe after saying you are interested in that career, say that one of the things that appeals to you about college x is the <blank> program, and you would be really excited to do that. You could ask him if he participated in any off campus programs when he was there. It sort of changes the subject and asks him a question that leads away from the conservation bio topic. I mean, if he keeps asking about it, I think you need to tell him what you really want to do. But I wouldn’t dwell on it if he doesn’t.</blank></p>
<p>Being a conservation biologist and being an environmentalist are two different things. </p>
<p>A conservation biologist identifies a question, formulates a hypothesis, gathers the evidence, and follows it regardless of where it leads, EVEN IF YOU HAPPEN TO DISAGREE WITH IT. Generally speaking, an environmentalist sees a problem, concludes that humans are bad, nature is good, and gathers the evidence to support that view.</p>
<p>From a scientific ethics point of view, the two are mutually exclusive, you cannot be both. The conservation biologist may come down on the environmentalist side of the argument, but that is determined by the evidence. The scientist about is neutral what the answer is, they are only determined to find the truth. The environmentalist predetermines the answer and works for the cause.</p>
<p>Now, that’s a perfect world. In reality, scientists are human and have egos. You’re young - be a scientific idealist.</p>
<p>Wow, what a nasty view of environmentalists. The formal definition is, “a person who is concerned with or advocates the protection of the environment.”. That says nothing about ignoring science and facts. Your bias is showing…</p>
<p>Not at all. Even your formal definition presupposes taking a side. Who are we protecting the environment from? Large flocks of birds? Roving bands of baboons? Right up front, it says protection of the environment is supreme. It is advocacy and says so right in the definition. Advocates argue for their side, they present facts that put their client in the best possible light, and ignore those that put it in the worst. We need advocates, on both sides, they provide an important service.</p>
<p>Scientists do not do that. (Or they shouldn’t.) Admittedly, discovery is more fun, and we tend to remember the discoverers, but who remembers who disproved cold fusion? We do remember who “discovered” it, and in doing so, they crossed the line and became advocates. Bad science.</p>