I went to my Harvard interview yesterday, and it was beyond phenomenal. My interviewer and I clicked on each note - likely the best interview I’ve had thus far. While we were talking, he commented that this was the best interview he has had in a while and was very impressed with my candidacy. He later emailed me saying, “I would love to see you at Harvard, and I hope we can make a special spot for you.”
Should I read into this at all? How much do interviews help (at Harvard in particular)? My interviewer is the chair of the regional Harvard-Radcliffe chapter and is a committee chair for Harvard Admissions. I’d presume his opinion carries heavy weight in the admissions process. Any thoughts?
Having a very positive interview can only help, but for your own sake, I’d advise that you don’t place so much hope based just on an interview. There have been many cases where interviewers have written glorious reports back to the Harvard Admissions committee with “admit” recommendations only to find candidates rejected. And vice versa. The admission process, beyond the fundamental qualifications, is really a crapshoot. Remain hopeful but do not place so much weight on the interview itself. Having a great interview, again, can only help. Definitely better than having a poor interview, so congratulations!
And it’s one-person, one-vote! Every accepted student must receive a nod from at least 51% of the people in the room. If every member of the full committee happens to be present that day, that means each student needs at least 20+ people in the room saying “YES” for them to be accepted.
It’s important to remember though that NOT every student is brought before the full committee. Regional Admissions Directors and the regional admissions committees read files and only bring the strongest applicants to the full committee.
My guess is that in the RD cycle maybe 3,000 to 3,500 students who have it all: top grades and test scores, stellar teacher recommendations, thought provoking essays, good interview reports and remarkable extracurricular activities – are brought before the whole committee each year. Of those 3500 students, about 1100 of them are made an offer of admission. The 2400 or so applicants who are not chosen by the full committee probably make up the waitlist.
The vast majority of applicants however – probably 85% to 90% of students who apply to Harvard – never make it to the full committee. That’s because their Regional Admissions Director had other top candidates to choose from.
So, a student’s interview report (and the rest of their application) must first impress their regional Admissions Officer – and then must impress over 51% of the Admissions Committee for a student to be admitted to Harvard…
My guess – and its just a guess – is that a positive interview report might help a student if their regional Admissions Officer is “sitting on the fence” about them. A positive interview might push that student into the pile of student’s brought to the full committee. However, a positive interview probably won’t help a student if their regional AO thinks their application doest’ warrant being brought to the full committee because there are other, stronger students, to choose from.
All of which is to say that I’m glad your interviewer thought highly of you, but you shouldn’t read anything into it at all! If Harvard admitted students by positive interview reports, they would have a 60% to 80% acceptance rate!
I disagree. It can’t hurt, surely – but in most cases, it won’t make any difference. The v applicants are in three groups: a) shoo-ins (recruited athletes, other “gotta haves” that, barring a felony or something, will receive an offer) – this is only a very small group (2%), b) the vast number who don’t get much traction past the first read. I can imagine 85%. Then there’s c) that remaining 13% or so which they need to whittle down by 3/4 — the kids in the grey area. For them, an very good interview MIGHT make a difference.
For group a) and b) – there is no affect whatsoever.
I personally think you put way too much information in this post. If the interviewer sees it, I think it would be a turnoff. If I were the interviewer, I would have preferred you keep those comments to yourself. Try not to be so anxious about admission. You had a good experience with the interview, great. Harvard admission is a nice thing but so is admission to countless other colleges: don’t get fixed on it. Good luck.
@compmom I really wonder if Harvard admissions staff come to CC to read all the threads, it just doesn’t seem like they would have the time (especially the time of year). I’d imagine an alumni would spend even even less time with CC. I agree with the rest of your sentiments though.
^^ @psywar: Several long term posters on the Harvard forum are in fact alumni interviews for Harvard and their peer schools. One long term CC poster I know of works in the Admissions office of an ivy league school – Brown, if I’m not mistaken. So, there are indeed “ears” listening to CC conversations!
Thank you all for your helpful responses. Honestly, I didn’t pay much mind to Harvard prior to my interview (in an attempt to keep my sanity intact because of the admissions rate) but this interview raised my hopes. I’m by no means fixated on the school or on the idea that the interview means more than it does – but I wanted to hear the latter from CC’ers more experienced than I.
And @compmom, without going into too much detail, I made sure to change certain details to protect the anonymity of my interviewer and I (the general sentiment is there, though). I felt the need to post this because the responses I got from support at home were almost too positive, as though the interview made me a shoo-in. I needed a reality check, lol. Thank you all again.
I agree . I don’t think the interview makes much difference. The class is composed of around 12 per cent recruited athletes. 12 per cent legacy and 5 to 10 per cent academic superstars who get into Harvard Princeton and Stanford . Assuming no overlaps that leaves around 70 per cent of the class to be chosen . URM is about 20 per cent of the class. So now we are down to 50 per cent again assuming again there is no over lap. The faculty’s primary job on the admission committee is to give opinions as to the quality of the applicants background in certain areas. In other words Mitzenmacher might evaluate the CS skills of some applicants for the committee to use for decision purposes
@gibby if that is the case, Harvard should inform applicants who have not passed the regional assessment earlier. I mean getting one’s hopes up till april, when one is already rejected months ago is just cruel.
@bkmaester: Most selective colleges do the same thing as Harvard. For example, in this video from Amherst College, the Admissions Committee is going through a list of 1000 students and either accepting them or sending them to the waitlist. The assumption (which is lightly touched upon) is that the 7000 students who are not on this list have already been rejected: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-OLlJUXwKU. It is cruel, but that’s the way the system works – and no college let’s a student know when their application has been passed over until acceptances/rejections come out.
@study222: Some colleges are ranking applicants and “prioritizing” interviews and this may be the case with Yale. Your daughter’s application was more desirable than her freind, so your daughter was interviewed first. Her friend will probably be interviewed before the end of the applications season, but it is a telling factor when something like this happens.
@proudparent26 : It is beyond silly to assume there are no overlaps among recruited athletes, URMs, legacies, and academic superstars. There are lots of kids who fit into two or three of those categories. (Recruited athletes who are bona fide academic superstars, as opposed to smart kids with great grades and SATs, are pretty rare.) But while you were whining, you forgot to whine about the 10%+ of students not from the US (some of whom are also recruited athletes, legacies, or academic superstars, but none of whom can count as URMs).
@JHS . I am not whining. I am just reporting the facts. I never said that there was no overlap among the groups. You indicated there are lots of kids that fit into two or three of those categories. What do you base that upon and how many actually are there. I am very curious to know the answer to that. Frankly I am very supportive of the current way Harvard builds their class and I don’t have any problems with their methodology. I think they do an excellent job. I do believe there is not much overlap between recruited athletes and academic superstars.
Sorry, @proudparent26 . I thought I caught a whine there about all the places going to URMs/legacies/athletes. I am a Yale alumnus from a Harvard family. I know lots of people who are alumni of one (or both) schools, and Princeton, and Stanford. Some of them are URMs. A number of kids have gone to a parent’s university as recruited athletes. A number of kids have gone to a parent’s university, having been accepted at all of the peer universities with no hooks whatsoever. My last cousin at Harvard was like that – a third-generation Harvard legacy who was also accepted at YPSM with no family connection. Or a college friend’s daughter, a legacy at Yale, which she attends, but not at Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, or Williams, all of which accepted her.
@JHS - “It is beyond silly to assume there are no overlaps among recruited athletes, URMs, legacies, and academic superstars. There are lots of kids who fit into two or three of those categories. (Recruited athletes who are bona fide academic superstars, as opposed to smart kids with great grades and SATs, are pretty rare.)”
I agree with everything you wrote. And I’m curious; just for fun, in your view what would distinguish a bona fide academic superstar athlete from a run of the mill smart athlete with great grades/test scores?
This is the first time I’ve seen athletics mentioned as a fourth criterion (equal to academics/ECs/personal qualities). I can imagine it would factor into the discussion if a student is a recruited athlete, but would sports matter for any other applicant? That is, beyond their role as a time-demanding EC.
The article is a decade old, so I can imagine things have changed, but it seems odd to weigh athletics as much as factors that - unless you’re recruited - would seem to be more closely related to what the average H student will do in his/her time there.
I believe the athletic assessment mentioned is for recruited athletes, as not every admitted student is athletically inclined or interested in participating in club sports.
It’s a good sign but it’s so hard to get into Harvard that you really should not get your hopes up.
However, my S had a similar interview at another IVY and was accepted. They talked for 2 hours and at the end of the interview the interviewer told my son he had excellent social skills and he really enjoyed talking to him and would be recommending him.
