<p>I'm an international student (from Ethiopia) and harvard didn't even bother to interview me. But they interviewed another guy from Ethiopia last month by phone. Is it a sign that they're not even considering my application seriously?</p>
<p>No, whether one receives an interview is not dependent on the strength of his or her application.</p>
<p>Says silverturtle. I don’t think anyone here on CC will have a definite answer for your question.</p>
<p>My information comes from current and former Harvard admissions officers. It’s possible that this is not as true for internationals, though. Hopefully Northstarmom will comment.</p>
<p>Northstarmom has already said in a different thread that she is not much familiar with the selection process for international interviews.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For internationals, I don’t think this is the case. </p>
<p>I was told and another applicant from my country was also told (by our alumni interviewers), that international applications are vetted before getting an interview. </p>
<p>Hence, there were quite alot of applicants from my country this year - most of which were in 2 capital cities, even though there were quite a few alumni interviewers available, some applicants didn’t get interviews while others in the same (not that large) city did. </p>
<p>Hence, for internationals at least, the strength of the application and the impression given off in the initial reading DOES matter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does that mean, specifically?</p>
<p>Perhaps those I talked to failed to properly qualify their policy as being with respect to domestic applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It means that getting an interview (for an international) indicates a better chance than not getting an interview.</p>
<p>What they do for us is </p>
<ol>
<li>An initial reading for an overall feel of the application.</li>
<li>Give interviews to the potentials, not give interviews to those who don’t give a very good first impression, or who don’t look like strong applicants. </li>
</ol>
<p>That’s what vetting means no?</p>
<p>PS. We were told so by 2 different alumni interviewers, and since they’re corroborating on the same point, I’m inclined to believe them.</p>
<ul>
<li>Though, my interviewer did also say that its possible to get in (of course!) without an interview, whether he was referring to US or intl students I don’t know.</li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, “vetting” does not indicate what kind of initial evaluation is employed. It could, for example, imply that only a small group of highly qualified applicants are given interviews. Or it could mean that only clear rejections are denied an interview.</p>
<p>That is not up for me to say. </p>
<p>(And to be honest, I doubt the alumni interviewers themselves are even told why certain kids get interviews or not. My interviewer just gets a list of names and contact details. Nothing more). </p>
<p>I didn’t exactly spend my interview grilling my alumni on Harvard’s admission’s policy. That wasn’t the point of the interview after all.</p>
<p>Do we really need to know the intimate details of the workings of Harvard’s Admission’s Office though? I’d rather not (since it’s not going to head anywhere) waste my energy second-guessing the process and attempting to understand things which Harvard does not feel the need to reveal. Not to its own alumni interviewers, and most definitely not to its applicants or the general public.</p>
<p>Que sera, sera. I’d personally rather just let it be.</p>
<p><a href=“And%20to%20be%20honest,%20I%20doubt%20the%20alumni%20interviewers%20themselves%20are%20even%20told%20why%20certain%20kids%20get%20interviews%20or%20not.%20My%20interviewer%20just%20gets%20a%20list%20of%20names%20and%20contact%20details.%20Nothing%20more”>quote</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How, then, did you attain the information in post #9?</p>
<p>Wow, you’re really into having a debate aren’t you. </p>
<p>Very simply, this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is what my alumni interviewer told me. His words were that applicants were “vetted”. That receiving an interview meant that my “application on first reading gave a good impression” and that it was a “good sign”. </p>
<p>Which indicates:</p>
<ol>
<li>That an initial reading was conducted.</li>
<li>That they make distinctions between applications and give interviews based on that distinction. </li>
</ol>
<p>Nothing mysterious in that. </p>
<p>I also said:</p>
<p><a href=“And%20to%20be%20honest,%20I%20doubt%20the%20alumni%20interviewers%20themselves%20are%20even%20told%20why%20certain%20kids%20get%20interviews%20or%20not.%20My%20interviewer%20just%20gets%20a%20list%20of%20names%20and%20contact%20details.%20Nothing%20more”>quote</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That’s right. My interviewer did not know WHY* I *was given an interview (as in specifically what they saw in my application) but he got my contact details and my name. </p>
<p>He knows the general process but he does not know the specific rationale behind the decisions. </p>
<p>Is that so mysterious?</p>
<p>theskylitup I just checked the harvard website and Ethiopia was not listed as a country where they give interviews to people. It says on the website “If the country from which you are applying does not appear on either of the two lists, then we do not have local interviewers available, however, the lack of an interview will not affect your candidacy.”
But they interviewed that other kid. Oh well, at least I know prematurely that I’ll get rejected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t lose hope! That’s not strictly true - I’d say, be pragmatically optimistic.
Have a whole bunch of options open to you because admissions at top ivies aren’t a guarantee for anyone. </p>
<p>Anyway, best of luck for April 1. :)</p>
<p>I don’t mean to upset you, and if it makes you feel any better, I did note that my interviewer also said that not having an interview does not necessarily mean rejection or anything. Good luck once again.</p>
<p>@gedion9324, just wait and see. You must know that wherever you go, you can still achieve your goals and be the person you want.</p>
<p>Yeah well when harvard offers second interviews to some and none to others its hard to be pragmatic and optimistic at the same time if you know what I mean…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree 100% with this. </p>
<p>Ivy admissions (or not) is not a judgement on your self worth. You are STILL a great person brimming with huge potential whether you go to Harvard or any other university. Where you go does not change who you are. </p>
<p>I was always 110% happy to stay in my country and to get a law degree at one of my country’s top universities. I think its great here where I live and I could not speak highly enough of that particular university. </p>
<p>I said all this to my Yale interviewer (yep, I talked not about how much I loved Yale, but I talked about how great I thought my country’s uni was) - who, guess what, responded really well to it because it showed that I wasn’t kow-towing to the Ivy myth and that I was perfectly happy to forge my own way wherever I went. </p>
<p>There’s nothing in a name for me, it’s about the individual person and their passions. </p>
<p>So come what may on April 1, you are still a great person whatever the decision.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know what you mean, and I sympathise. Good luck, keep your chin up!</p>
<p>macarenpas with my country’s university system offering only a strict graduate program with no chance of changing my major I doubt I can say I’ll achieve my goals wherever I go. But thanks anyway</p>
<p>@ gedion9324: What do you want to study??? I did not mean to be misleading.</p>
<p>@ theskylitup: where are you from??? just curious :)</p>