<p>
[quote]
Overall, 33 percent of schools said they gave no importance to an interview, up from 30 percent the year before, according to a survey by the National Association for College Admission Counseling. </p>
<p>Interviews ranked as the ninth-most valued criterion for admissions officials...</p>
<p>Sally Rubenstone, an admissions consultant at College Confidential, noted that her colleagues who served as alumni interviewers often see their top-rated applicants denied admission, while some applicants with weak alumni interviews receive acceptance letters.
<p>Frankly, I think colleges are "blowing it" in not giving an interview more weight. Certainly, I would discount what a kid says because it will usually be self serving,which is sadly what interviews are for.HOWEVER, the real benefit of the interview should be to evaluate how the prospect handles situations. Many interviews can give a good glimpse as to a prospect's common sense or lack thereof, They can give a good a illustration of the prospect's personality.They can show how quick witted a prospect can be. They can also give some real insight into the drive and deternination of the prospect. </p>
<p>Bottom line is that I personally believe that colleges should do a LOT more with interviews than they are currently doing.</p>
<p>I agree, taxguy. I am an alumni interviewer for a university and most of the students I meet are really personable and interesting. But every once in a while I interview someone that sets off the alarm bells -- and exhibit personality traits that the admissions officers might not be aware of simply by reading the application.</p>
<p>Once I met a student at a Starbucks for an interview and she came with her father. Now, while unusual, I thought maybe he needed to drive her there for some reason and he'll wait in the car. No... she was so anxious and distraught over the situation he asked if he could sit with us while I interviewed her. He ended up answering most of the questions for her, as she was not capable of speaking. It was one of the few times that I thought this person would really have been better off not to have done an interview. She was not accepted.</p>
<p>You mean world-renowned institutions with billions of dollars at their disposal don't trust untrained volunteers to screen their applicant pool for them? Well, I'll be. </p>
<p>I think interviews are good for details that might get missed by hard statistics when evaluating an applicant, but I never had the sense that any college I applied to took them incredibly seriously. It's a "do-it-if-you-can" deal that shows off your interest in the school and not much else, due to the highly subjective nature of the process.</p>
<p>College admissions is going backwards. In the past decades, colleges shifted from "numbers" obsessed to the idea of a "holistic" admissions process. Now we see a reverse in the trend.</p>
<p>In the end, college admission will eventually turn back to the middle ages...relying solely on GPA/SAT numbers, not on the integrity of the applicant.</p>
<p>Gee. I'm an alum. that does interviews for Penn. I usually spend about 45 minutes with an applicant and try to do a pretty detailed write up for each interview. I'm going to be a little ticked off if all that effort counts for little or nothing.</p>
<p>friedrice, what's fascinating is that the "holistic" college admissions process that you describe was actually developed to replace a more mechanistic approach that had been used until the early 20th century. According to a recent book called The Chosen written by a sociologist with access the HYP admission archives, the more numbers-based approach was dropped because urban or immigrant Jews dramatically surpassed the WASPish gentleman that HYP saw as their constituency and indeed would have completely filled the HYP classes to the mortification of HYP's alumni and corporate constituencies. Geographic distribution requirements were added to limit the number of Jews that could be admitted from NY, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago. Extra-curricular activities started to count so that they could distinguish between robust, Christian, athletes and intellectual, studious Jews. And interviews were further used to make sure that applicants had the "right" (Christian) kind of character to be admitted. Under pressure from some its students and professors (particularly some of its few Jewish ones), Harvard dropped its quota of Jewish acceptances and replaced it with this more "holistic" approach to admissions. If indeed, admissions are becoming largely numerical, this would actually be a return to admissions prior to geographic distribution requirements, extra-curricular activities, and interviews.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if there is no importance to interviews then why conduct them?
[/quote]
The interviews often serve as a one-on-one information session for the school of interest. The student can ask questions about the interviewer's own personal experience.</p>
<p>The interviews, if anything, are good practice for future interviews. When I was interviewing to get into the BS/MD program I'm in, I had to interview with a medical school...while I was still in high school! The interviews went great and I suspect that's why I made it into the program considering my weak stats. I was more experienced for those interviews because I had interviewed with another program a few weeks prior. I wasn't very good there (my first interviews ever) and I didn't get in.</p>
<p>Penn interviews definitely count.
From seeing who gets into Penn and who doesn't.. while everybody who gets into Penn is obviously very intelligent and accomplished. Those who are actually interested in Penn.. show interest in essays and have it as one of their top non HYPSM choices get in.
Those who just apply to Penn because it's Penn and don't care often don't get in even with high stats..</p>
<p>I'm not sure, but there are nine admissions factors listed on Princeton Review profiles that generally get rated "Very Important" or "Important" by most campuses. The others listed seem to be more minor.</p>
<p>The big nine (in which this article suggests the Interview ranks ninth) appear to include:</p>
<p>Secondary school record
Class rank
Recommendations
Standardized test scores
Essays
Extracurricular activities
Talent / ability
Character / personal qualities
Interview</p>
<p>The problem with interviews is that there's no continuity. You've got, what, hundreds/thousands of alums interviewing thousands of applicants? You can't control their processes, and it's extremely difficult to correlate their responses. For the same reasons, I would wager that teacher recs don't count for much (relatively speaking) - every teacher rec says that this kid is amazing, and every interview speaks great volumes about a student, but when you start to amass 10,000 of these things it's just ridiculous to maintain standards.</p>
<p>^That is not true about recommendations. Every rec. does not praise the student. Many teachers take the opportunity to bash the student for being, for example, arrogant, irresponsible, rude, socially-inept, etc. This easily occurs if the student checks the box that withholds his or her rights to see the rec. after matriculation.</p>