UPenn article on college interviews

Applying to College
21

<p>In working through the admission process with now two kids, I've seen the gamut of interviews. Here are some extremes:</p>

<p>At WUSTL D1 had an interview scheduled as a prospective art major and she was told it was simply informational and she need bring nothing with her. We expected a grad student. Instead we were ushered into the office of the school dean who greeted us both, talked a bit, and asked if my daughter had brought any of her work with her, which she had not. She told the dean what the secretary scheduling the meeting had told her and the dean was mystified. I'd happened to have in my pocket shots I'd taken of my D's work before we left, just taken in the front yard and printed on my home printer, and offered those to the dean. Her response was very favorable praising my D's work as so different than what they see from "art factory" high-schools. They talked for over a half-hour. </p>

<p>My D was admitted and offered a substantial grant and Dean's Scholarship.</p>

<p>My other D was very interested in William and Mary. W&M fills all their interview spots by the summer of the year to apply. No exceptions. Obviously they don't really rely on the interview. D was accepted, but chose not to attend. </p>

<p>Bard College has "instant" admission (actually the Immediate Decision Plan) where each year several hundred prospects choose a day to spend attending a seminar for which they've had reading assigned, touring the campus, having lunch, and ending the day in an interview that determines their acceptance. Candidates are notified the next day. Bard says they used to tell them right there but it became a bit traumatic. I'd have to say that's an important interview! If you think it's for you, it's an option. My D chose EA instead.</p>

22

<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>

<p>I consider it highly unlikely that "many" recommendations do this. There may be a substantial number of fairly lukewarm recs, however. It seems to me from what I've read that interviews, recommendations, and even essays are not too likely to help a student overcome problems with stats and ECs, but that unusual problems with any of these could hurt a student. So, if you're very bad at interviewing, it might be better to not interview, even if that shows less interest in the school.</p>

23

<p>Interviews are disfavored because a lot of schools think it can be a slippery slope to getting them into trouble. But my view is the entire admissions process can get them into trouble.....and they become masters of deception in projecting one image and one process and then conduct themselves and make decisions quite differently.</p>

<p>However, I think that interviews are helpful to most schools. It can enlighten them on the applicants abilities and personality, both favorably and disfavorably. If kids complain they dont interview well....I say, "how in the heck do you think you can avoid a job interview? How do you think you will do in class...college is more than regurgitation of facts (high school), its about engagement and discussion and CONTRIBUTING TO THE LEARNING PROCESS OF OTHERS!"</p>

<p>The only other thing to do is to be totally objective and totally open about the process and say, "We are sorry....but due to the number of applications we get and the small number of available seats (dorm rooms), we can only accept X amount of students, and we typically have a retention rate for acceptance of Y%. Thus, we will only look at students with stats above Z level (e.g. SAT above 1400, gpa above 3.7 UW, and class rank above top 15%). That way, kids know UP FRONT what the real deal is and can move on or keep on trucking or whatever.</p>

<p>But to solicit applications from kids they KNOW are NOT going to be accepted is immoral and unjust. Interviewing kids with scores below their marginal rates is also immoral...unless they tell them, "sorry, but your scores are not what we are looking for. Can we suggest you look at this or that college which might be a better fit for you?"</p>

<p>Do I think the SAT is a good measure of intelligence? No. Its a blunt instrument. Why do colleges use the math portion to disqualify EXCELLENT students who are going to be history or music majors? Or why do they use the critical reading score to disqualify someone who is going to be a chemistry or math or engineering major? Its bizarre.</p>

<p>Yes, some kids score extremely well in BOTH sections....but maybe their high school teaches for the SAT exam, or they had SAT tutoring or are just outstanding standardized test takers....</p>

<p>this is where an interview can help them take a closer look at kids on the bubble.....perhaps that is the answer.....they can say, "we reserve the right to call in anyone we are looking at for an interview". That way, they can examine concerns they have, or question the kid about a particular grade they are concerned about, or see if they can walk and chew gum at the same time, or see if they are just nerds who are antisocial and will be MISERABLE at their school, or see if they are goofballs who have PARTY tattooed on their foreheads.</p>

24

<p>I wrote this on a different thread on September 7th:</p>

<p>I have been interviewing for Penn for probably something like 20 years and I can categorically say that the interview is next to meaningless as an evaluative tool. If people would apply critical thinking the reason would be obvious--if I am a member of an admissions committee having experience and training, how could I possibly give any real weight to the opinion of someone I do not know and have never met who may be totally inept at it or have some strong bias and who has met an applicant for a brief time? It would be totally irresponsible.</p>

<p>So, you may ask, why do I bother interviewing? Well, I loved Penn and I fulfill this role because I am a Penn ambassador. Sure, I like to meet the kids, and I do take a lot of time and care with this--talking to them for about an hour, answering questions, asking substantive questions, writing up thoughtful evaluations--but my real job is to leave them with a positive impression of Penn so that they want to go there if they get in. Penn does not say this outright, but it has become pretty apparent over the years that interviewing has the positive benefits of making alumni feel connected and valued and making the students see an actual human face connected with the school if they live far away. I am a goodwill ambassador and that's perfectly okay.</p>

<p>As you can imagine I have interviewed lots of kids over the years. We do get some loose guidance--but there's no way Penn could know exactly what we are saying to an applicant. They are trusting our love for the school. I do not see or ask about an applicant's academic record. I have found that there are kids I adore who do not get in and some I am not crazy about who do. There is no correlation between my evaluation and the admissions results. I attribute this to all of the really important things I do not know about an applicant that are the real basis for the decision. And this is as it should be. I don't think a one hour talk should be a substitute for years of effort</p>

25

<p>Here's a question we have regarding interviews -- how important is it to interview on campus for the very selective schools? It's hard for us due to distance. Is it sufficient just to interview locally? Do schools take note of the school visit + interview and consider it a sign of interest?</p>

26

<p>^Demonstrated interest is a small part of the admissions process, but it is often noted. For example, on Northwestern's application they ask a series of questions regarding demonstrated interest, revolving around campus visits, information sessions, Chicago trips, etc. Yale also takes note of demonstrated interest. An interview shows interest. However, demonstrated interest is something that is "considered." It is not listed as "important" or "very important" on most universities' common data sets.</p>

27

<p>I don't find the results of that study to be surprising. It is saying that one third of colleges do not consider interviews. And that's right....particularly very large universities, state schools, less selective schools, and others do not use interviews. Some can't due to size and some are numbers driven for admission and some are not that selective to begin with. But most of the highly selective schools DO have interviews.</p>

<p>The fact that it is the ninth most weighted factor in the admissions decision is not surprising either. It surely should not come before rigor of curriculum, GPA, SATs, extracurriculuars, essays, achievements, rank, teacher recs, etc. The fact is, it IS a factor but doesn't carry significant weight in the overall decision.</p>

<p>I'm an alum interviewer for Tufts and have been for over ten years. I know that the adcoms read every interview report. I see the interview report as one way (among others) of getting to know the personality of the student, as well as interest in the school, and things that are not as black and white on the application. Hopefully, the interview report will correlate with and support other documents in the applicant's file. That's how it can be HELPFUL. If it is a mediocre interview report, it likely doesn't truly hurt the applicant. But if it is a report that really is a thumbs down sort of report, it might cause the adcoms to look further, except if it is the only document to not fit the rest of the profile, in which case it may be discounted. But if there are other red flags and then the interview report is another red flag, it could tip things for someone on the fence. </p>

<p>The fact that interviewers, myelf included, have interviewed applicants who come across as terrific, and for whom we have written glowing reports, only to find out disappointedly that these applicants were rejected is also not surprising. The fact is, excellent applicants are rejected at highly selective schools all the time. Further, as interviewers, we do not get to see the entire profile, or even GPA or SATs, and so we don't have the entire picture the adcoms have. </p>

<p>My D did interviews at almost all of her schools and I don't think that was what got her into them but I think they were an extra little plus in that I believe she comes across well in interviews. I'm her mom and can say that :D. Seriously, some kids freeze up but she truly knows how to interview and is not shy either. It so happens, for the sake fo this thread, she applied to Penn. Penn was the one school that did not provide an interview in our region unfortunately (she had visited the school though). So, she never had one like she did at her other schools. She got accepted to Penn and we were shocked when she got a letter that she was selected as one of 100 Ben Franklin Scholars there. So, not having an interview didn't hurt her. But having one, and a good one, could be a nice tip in a file of supporting all the other things in it. I know my alma mater tells us (as recently as a detailed letter I just received) that they truly do weigh our interview reports.</p>

28

<p>That statistic is one big lump of bull@#%*.</p>

<p>Did they survey every single school in the United States? If they did (which I doubt) then 33% would be a very insignificant number considering the fact that there are a remaining 67% of schools who do still put some weight on interviews. </p>

<p>Given the fact that the average highly achieving college bound student applies to from anywhere from 6 - 10 schools. </p>

<p>Meaning that 1-3 of those schools they are applying to don't really care about the interview...while the other 5-7 do.</p>

<p>NOW how important do you think the interview is?</p>

29

<p>An interview would seem a logically important part of a holistic admissions process. Unfortunately, giving heavy weight to a volunteer alumnus would be an abrogation of professional responsibility by adcoms. Perhaps only those applicants considered "close" should be granted an interview by an admissions officer. Numbers may or may not preclude this solution. In any event, it does seem duplicitous to claim to be holistic and to ignore the most reliable presentation of the "whole" applicant.</p>

30

<p>All those crap statistics about "LOL 60% OF COLLEGE APPLICANTS GET INTO THEIR FIRST CHOICE COLEGE LOL NO WAI " and "OMG PPL DONT CARE ABOUT EC's AND INTERVIEWS AND ESSAYS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY R RANKED LIKE LAST IN IMPORTANCE!" are crap</p>

<p>u cant generalize about college, just like when u say the "average cost of college is ----" or "the country's average college acceptance rate is 80%!!!"(example)/</p>

<p>Out of our country's 3000+ colleges, only less than 3% are 'selective' (x<70% acceptance rate) So all that crap about interviews is trash. Interviews are important, it doesnt matter what those stupid articles say.</p>

31

<p>Mammall--Just offering a different viewpoint to Central Perky's in case Yale is one of the schools you are talking about. I am not aware that they track demonstrated interest. In any event, they make NO distinction between on campus and alumni interviews in terms of interest.</p>

<p>I'm a longtime alumni interviewer for Yale and have interviewed my fair share of wildly arrogant, beyond the pale socially awkward people, and people with no common sense (note to applicants: no "fashionably" exposed thong underwear paired with a see-through shirt when you're interviewing at a professional workplace--I can't imagine what colleagues must have thought the young woman was doing in my office). I had an interview much like blackeyedsusan's where the dad did all the talking and wouldn't leave. A worst interview thread from the alumni interviewer's perspective would make for humorous reading.</p>

32

<p>I don't know. Oxford and Cambridge both consider the interview THE most important part of an application. Those schools appear to be doing fine.</p>

33

<p>This probably entirely depends on the individual school. Also, for home-schooled college applicants, often the interview (and test scores) are given the most weight.</p>

34

<p>AdmissionsAddict - YOU should start that thread!!! I think that would be an amazing/helpful/ and humorous read! :D</p>

35

<p>Go for it, AA - that could be fun.</p>

<p>I'd guess the only time the interview carries any weight is if there is some major negative commentary on the applicant (was rude and disrespectful, said the only reason he applied to College X was because his parents made him, answered every question with a monosyllabic reply, etc.) that reinforces a concern from the rest of the application. Fine distinctions between applicants who are "oustanding" or "very good" can't be taken into account when you've got a bazillion alumni interviewers. In addition, the applicant pool varies a lot with geography, making comparisons even more difficult.</p>

<p>On the other hand, doing well in an interview can't hurt. I'd suggest any applicant invited for an interview take advantage of it, and take it seriously without actually stressing over it.</p>

36

<p>I am convinced that my D's interview with a Rochester alum was a significant step in the application process, but perhaps less so for the school than for her. Let me explain. </p>

<p>Her interviewer was about as friendly and as helpful as they come, as she loved the school and made no attempt to hide her feelings. This was a genuine person who had volunteered her time to travel to a dreary hotel on a winter Saturday for an entire day talking to high school seniors. I must say I admired her for that, if nothing else. Not my idea of a good time...</p>

<p>She was truly a good will ambassador, was not only enthusiastic about Rochester, but had a lot of good information for my D to consider, as she had not yet visited the campus. After the session, the alum came out and introduced herself to me (I had been sitting in the waiting area listening to a nervous parent talk about her son). Well, she practically gushed about my D which is what every parent (I would think) likes to hear at that point. </p>

<p>It turned out this one of several indicators that UR would be a good fit for my D and I can report that she is happily enrolled there today. It's nice to feel wanted.</p>

<p>P.S. My D had a positive interview experience with a Tufts alum too.</p>

37

<p>Whether it's considered in the decision process or not, a big thanks should go out to all the alumni who give their time to conduct these interviews! If nothing else, it can allow an applicant to get a first hand view of the school and is one additional factor in trying to find a good fit between student and school.</p>

38

<p>When I was applying last year, every alumni interviewer told me that the interview was optional, and that it was offerred to provide information to me about the school. They all said that the interview would neither help nor hurt my admissions chances. Several friends were never offered an interview, because there were no alum interviewers in their area. They were admitted to the schools without an interview. Alumni interviews are a public relations tool. I imagine on-campus interviews, with admissions personnel would be more influential.</p>

39

<p>I believe nimby58 has it right, based upon my 2 kids experience as well as fairly candid accounts by ex-admissions officers at Dartmouth and Duke. I don't think the intrerview tends to be given weight at all.
I think Rachel Toor at Duke commented that the alums (who didn't have detailed info on the applicant) tended to be most enthusiastic about the weakest candidates who didn't have a chance. She did read the "5" evaluations (on a 1 to 5 scale) so that she would have an answer to alums on why their favorites were rejected.</p>

40

<p>^ Dartmouth and Duke interviews are both informational only.</p>