<p>Can anyone shed light on the phenomenon of the "non-evaluative" on campus interview? Very few of the colleges D is visiting this summer offer interviews that are acknowledged as counting in the admissions process. The rest of her interviews are ostensibly just for the purpose of the student gaining greater insight into the college, which is actually very nice and unintimidating, except that it's hard to believe that there really isn't any evaluation of the applicant going on. What do you think?</p>
<p>Varies college to college. Amherst and Williams did away with all evaluative interviews years ago, as they saw it as simply cementing their "old boys" networks. Other colleges, including Earlham, Smith, and MIT, tend to count it quite a lot.</p>
<p>Harvard and Yale seem to offer on campus interviews they say don't count. But this would seem to imply that the interviewer wouldn't communicate his or her impressions to the admissions staff. Is this accurate?</p>
<p>Think of it this way: The school cannot afford to use high cost, trained talent for these interviews - the numbers jost don't allow it. So there's no way to have any consistency in the feedback. Without consistency, there's little value. </p>
<p>It is interesting that some schools offer interviews only to select applicants, such as from prep schools. What does that tell you?</p>
<p>It's funny how we sweat the most marginal parts of this process - interviews, recs, essays, ECs, when the parts that really count are grades, test scores and curriculum.</p>
<p>Nester,
Well, here's the Yale web page telling interviewers how to describe candidates in their reports to admissions. I find it hard to believe that Yale doesn't at least consider the interview report if they put this much effort into telling the interviewers how to describe the candidate:</p>
<p>At least in the case of Harvard, they really try hard to stick to that. Even if the interviewing officer does chat about the kid to other officers, those interviews usually happen months before the apps are evaluated, and chances are, no one's going to remember anything that could tip the balance about any one kid when they're looking at 20,000 apps.</p>
<p>That being said, if the interview were a total disaster for some reason -- if the student were obnoxious and rude to the staff member or broke down sobbing in the middle of the room -- I bet that the interviewer would put a note in the kid's file. I don't have any direct evidence, but something like that would be very memorable, and I just don't believe they'd let it go.</p>
<p>Edited to add: Carolyn, those instructions are for alumni interviewers, not on-campus interviewers. At both Harvard and Yale, alumni interviews in the student's hometown are quite important.</p>
<p>newmassdad: while grades, test scores, and curriculum are the most important, students' ec's, recs, essays, and interviews do carry great significance at many schools, especially when trying to differentiate between multitudes of students where the first three are almost indistinguishable. (Perhaps at very very large schools, where they can't go thru each ap with a fine tooth comb, you would be correct).</p>
<p>Yale does local alumni interviews. My D had an interviewer who was already retired (a few years), a science person, (she isn't) and went there when it was all male. Although my D thought he was a nice man, she did not feel very comfortable about it afterwards. He didn't even know about the "shopping" weeks. He thought she wanted to know where to buy clothes when she asked about it. Oops! Her Princeton interviewer, however, was very knowledgeable, graduated about 6 years ago, and she felt good. Bet you know how they turned out? Rejected Y - W/L P. So test scores, curriculum, etc., don't just count. She was sal, took every AP available, scored 5's, 1550 SAT, etc., but those interviews...She was accepted EW to Amherst - no interview. Didn't do the optional interview at UofCh, and was accepted. She clicked so well with the Middlebury interviewer, she was told outright she was exactly what they wanted, and would recommend her. Was accepted. So, if you think the interviews don't count, that certainly wasn't our experience. I agree the problem is that there really is no true norm - because different people do the interviews all over the country, they all bring themselves and their own prejudices, hopes, aspirations, life experiences, etc., to the interview, and I firmly believe that one kid can do well with one interviewer, and then do poorly with another. You can have all the rubriks in the world, but the numbers written down, or checks made, are purely subjective. Interviews should not be part of the admissions process since they are too subjective, and kids cannot be equally evaluated.</p>
<p>I think non-evaluative interviews can be very beneficial for students. They get to find out more about a particular school and the whole admissions process without risking anything. It's also a chance to prep for interviews that are evaluative, as the same kinds of questions tend to come up.</p>
<p>I think alumni interviews (all interviews, for that matter) are looked at as a piece of the whole application. The person who gets to read every part of the application has a context for the alumni report. What the alums report probably affirms the rest of the application. My h. interviewed as an alum for an ivy and had no knowledge of a student's scores, etc. except as it might come out in response to a general question. The point was to sit down with a student, have a conversation, and write his impressions, citing specifics to back up his takes on a student. I think when an office is handling 20,000 applications they have a way of making cuts before they even get down to reading what an alum has to say. Unless a student admitted to plagiarism or some equally damaging thing in an interview, I don't see how you could sink your chances. I think of the interview as a chance to shine - and it's nice to get a few non-evaluative ones under your belt first.</p>
<p>At every Yale info session we attended over several years the mantra was " we STRONGLY SUGGEST" that you take advantage of the interview process if available in your area."</p>
<p>I later learned (after interview had taken place) from someone high up in the local Yale alumni club and very involved in their process, that it is definitely scored and used to validate/substantiate the hard data on the application. It also serves as one more way (after the all important essays) to bring the applicant to life.</p>
<p>My friend believes his local interview blew his admission to Harvard in the late 70s. He was a NMF at an inner-city public school in the South, great stats, told he was a shoe-in. Unfortunately my friend's younger brother was dating the interviewer's daughter (and dad wasn't pleased with her going with this low-class guy). Also, the interviewer saw my friend give a "creative" speech as the head of the NHS at his school--he thanked his cat, etc. The interviewer asked him if he was drunk. . .and probably told Harvard, "this kid's an idiot. . ." So he didn't get in. And he really was an idiot in some ways, since he had ONLY applied to Harvard! He spent another year in his hometown--waiting tables and doing local theatre. Happy ending, though. He was accepted at Yale ED the next year, and later became a doctor. (And his brother became a bartender).</p>
<p>It truly depends on the school. My D's GC advised her to do on-site interviews if she was touring the college AND do the alumni local interviews if offered. At Yale, my understanding is that the summer on-site interviews are done by seniors, while the local interviews are done by alumni and are evaluated. Harvard does not offer interviews until AFTER they have received the application. Other schools, don't need an application for an interview. We view it as the best way for our D to have her questions about a particular school answered without having to fight through the crowds at the information session or compete with other prospects on the tour.</p>
<p>Hanna, I was responding to Nestor's comment which I took as meaning that Yale doesn't do ANY evaluative interviews. As you noted, they definitely do.</p>
<p>This is all very helpful. (Carolyn, thanks especially for the Yale alumni interview guidelines.) I take from this that students can do the non-evaluative, fact-finding interviews, generally with trained seniors, on site when they visit colleges, and then do the "graded" alumni interviews when they return home. </p>
<p>Newmassdad -- I wasn't aware that colleges were limiting interviews to students from certain high schools. The colleges that we contacted, generally by phone but in one case on the net, just scheduled the interviews on the requested dates, and only then did they ask for personal information including D's high school. Where have you run into this?</p>
<p>My D completed 7 interviews during our recent college tour. All were with admissions reps (no students). </p>
<p>While there was no mention of grades or test scores (even though D attached a one-page transcript summary to her activity resume), D says every interviewer took plenty of notes.</p>
<p>Sounds mighty evaluative to me.</p>
<br>
<p>Sounds mighty evaluative to me.</p>
<br>
<p>Were these interviews at schools that explicitly state that on-campus interviews are non-evaluative? There is no doubt that some schools (such as Haverford) place great weight on the evaluative on-campus interview; the issue is what to make of schools that make the opposite claim.</p>
<p>Things may have changed over the past three years, but for sure my son's on campus interview at Yale was evaluative. His interviewer was a current student (whom I later learned joined the adcom after graduation). He provided wonderful personal insights into life at Yale and also provided a contact for my son to keep in touch with during the admissions process. </p>
<p>Also, while we were in the waiting area, the director of admissions wandered through talking to families informally, but you could tell he was "evaluating." He was interested in learning more about my son's high school and spent quite a lot of time with us.</p>
<p>In all my son interviewed at 8 of the 14 colleges he visited. The interviewers were about 50/50 current students/adcom members, in two cases the director of admissions. They were all positive experiences as they put a human face on the school, which was especially beneficial in the case of the safeties/less selectives. Sort of like, if this person who is obviously smart and nice likes it here, then I will too.</p>
<p>This is, as I understand it, still how it works at Yale, Momrath.</p>
<p>Nester,</p>
<p>Two years ago, I had a very nice chat with an admissions rep from BC. BC is a few miles from m D's HS, and one of the reps was speaking at a parent meeting about, no surprise, college admissions. I said hello to the BC rep while waiting to start, told her my D was NOT applying to BC (true) and then told her I went to a Jesuit HS. She told me that they give interviews to kids from Jesuit HS, but not other schools.</p>
<p>From other parents, I've learned of the interviews many prep school kids get with adcoms during campus visits (along with more personalized tours etc.) in contrast to others who will get student interviews or none at all.</p>
<p>So, some schools vary the interview process. I think it important to keep in mind that schools often use interviews for: (i) recruiting purposes. Some parents (and their kids) expect it, and just cannot believe that they don't count, so the school offers them in various ways and (ii) for development purposes. Interviewing is a great way to keep alums connected (and donating).</p>
<p>Now, some smaller schools, such as Rochester and Oberlin (D has first hand experience at both) DO use interviews as a part of the evaluation process, and the interviews are done by adcoms. </p>
<p>I suspect a good way to tell the "real story" is to note who does the interview: Alums? think fund raising/development. Student interns? think marketing and recruiting. Admissions professionals? Think evaluation. LAC? Probably counts.</p>
<p>Regardless of what schools say, and they say many things about admissions that are just not true ("second look only for legacies", "no advantage to EA/ED applicants" and so forth") that I would add interviews to the list, at least at larger schools that get thousands of applicants. If there is any impact at all it must be tiny.</p>
<p>Any time you talk to a school about anything--unless it's an anonymous phone call from a pay phone--you have to assume that what you say can make a difference.</p>
<p>My advice to both my kids when they interviewed was: you're trying to determine if this is the school for you--ask the interviewer the questions you need to ask to answer that question. It took a lot of the pressure off when they thought about it that way.</p>
<p>MIT uses both on-campus interviews and off-campus alumni interviewers.</p>