@homerdog at least interviews are all virtual now! So much easier.
2 Likes
The interview is not as important or decisive as other parts of the app again because not everybody can have one, the alumni, staff, that interview do things differently, there may be a standard set of questions to ask but because each interviewer is different, itâs not a consistent process.
The point in the article is that interviews create unnecessary stress and it advantages high SES who can afford to visit or who donât have an issue doing zoom (reliable internet etc.).
In a different thread, I mentioned that my interview ratings of applicants appear to be well correlated with decisions, particularly if a rank by lowest subcomponent rating rather than average rating. However, immediately after that statement, I wrote the following. I clearly do not imply that correlation with decision = my interview causes decision. Do we really need to debate what I said in a different thread?
âI realize that there should be many unexpected decisions since the vast majority of the admission decision depends on criteria and other external factors that I do not have access to. I mostly hear about out of classroom activities, personal goals, overcoming challenges, favorite courses + course rigor, and other non-stat factors. Perhaps this relationship occurs because the kids I interview tend to excel in the stat factors, so admission decision is better correlated with the non-stat factors that I hear about. Or it may just be a small sample size anomaly.â
I also interview for Stanford and have done about 30 interviews in the past 6 years. Not one of the kids I have interviewed has been accepted (Only slightly below the expected rate which would be one acceptance per every 20-25 candidates). This is despite having several who I thought were great (which was reflected in my write up). So based on my experience, I can say that I can also predict who will be accepted after the interview - No one.
6 Likes
My S21 declined the opportunity to have an interview on any application that allowed the choice. Even for generally good interviewees, any interviewer or interview introduces a somewhat random element. We did not feel that interviews could improve substantively on the application as presented.
Of course, some schools have since asked for interviews, and out of politeness he has done those, and generally enjoyed them. But the point remains that interviews are likely to add little to an already-strong application and potentially could be negative.
Back to this assertion? It doesnât matter if everyone gets an interview. Itâs those interviews that do happen.
Likewise, you donât get autorejected if you donât get called for one or politely decline.
Thereâs a difference between an alum, AO. student providing input versus having the authority to declare an admit.
And the article is flawed.
By the very nature of âholisticâ admissions, thereâre inevitable differences among colleges practicing âholisticâ admissions. No one has a perfect seat to observe all the variations. Not a reporter, not a former AO, or not even a current AO. Thatâs why it helps to look at from different perspetives.
2 Likes
So a collorary to your 0% acceptance rate is some other interviewer will have an above-average acceptance rate. But that makes me wonder - are some interviewers producing far-above-average acceptance rates when they interview? Are the universities weighing the opinions of some interviewers (prominent/rich/powerful/connected) more than others? Or are exuberant, well-written individuals getting their interviewees in at higher rates?
1 Like
Agree.
But the more common CC issue is those with convictions that come from who knows where. Or too much reliance on, âI heard it somewhere.â
No one can know it all. Just our observations. And thatâs limited to what we did deal with. Etc.
I think the elite competition is nuts. Beyond most kidsâ ability to truly fathom⊠But they can try to improve their understanding of the basics.
Suppose Stanford had a 4% admit rate among alumni interviewed students (some hooked kids go through a different process). In a random distribution, the chance of a 0% admit rate in 30 interviews is (1 - 0.04)^30 = 29%. It should be fairly common and is certainly not rare enough to suspect anything fishy is going on.
However, the distribution is not random. Interviewers are usually assigned by region, such that interviewers often see multiple applicants from a few nearby HSs, but no applicants from other further away HSs. For a variety of reasons, some HSs tend to have higher acceptances rates than others. Highly selective HSs in particular tend to have higher acceptance rates. To a lesser extent, schools in wealthy and well resourced areas tend to have higher acceptance rates. With the non-random distribution, you might see some interviewers who are expected to have an acceptance rates far above the average and others far below.
Here itâs not clear whether the portfolio or interview carries more weight. Normally for art schools requiring a portfolio submission, that in and of itself can weight heavily into a decision. But maybe your ability to articulate your thinking, receive critique, etc. is also very important here.
From what Iâve learned from someone who is a Harvard alum and interviews for them: the great ones for the most part donât get admitted. The bad ones never get admitted. So the interview does, indeed, matter. Itâs just not sufficient to put an app. over the top in most cases. Itâs one part of the picture - thatâs all. But it can weed out some people - or perhaps confirm that they should be weeded out.
Agree. But only a teeny percent do get admitted.
The elephant in the room is that, ime, for the vast number of apps, when you get to the interview report, there can already be some uncertainty. Or not enough oomph in the picture of the kid. An enthusiastic report can help/fill in some blanks. Or not.
I like the age group. I like most of these kids as individuals. Anyone who works with kids probably can say the same. But this task (for elites) is about nailing an app package in an extraordinarily competitive context. Fraught with perils.
When we are trained to interview for Stanford, they give us guidelines for rating the candidates. We are told that the highest rating should be rarely given. Since all the interviews that we do are from nearby, our comments are all read by the same AO. If one interviewer was routinely giving out the highest ratings, then the AO would certainly notice and take those ratings with a big grain of salt.
Now we got the issue of alumni interviews out of the way 
, what other admission criteria do you think may weigh significantly more in the absence of test scores? The first candidate is obviously transcript. But how do you compare two transcripts when they have nothing but As on them? You might say âuse the school profileâ. But the school profile isnât very granular. Nor is it commensurable between schools, as one school may have stronger students than the other. In the absence of test scores, how do we even know one school is stronger than the other in the first place? Based on historical data? Demographics arenât necessarily perpetual. What do we do then?
3 Likes
it seems that class rank could be a very good indicator except that more and more schools do not rank plus the grades are inflated so much that too many have very high GPAsâŠ
1 Like
Our school profile has a lot of info. From breaking weighted GPA and unweighted GPA out by decile, to how many students received certain ranges of ACT/SAT scores (ie. how many scored between 34-36, 31-33), how many students go to four year college. It lists out our AP classes and overall scores and lists all honors classes by subject to show the schoolsâ offerings. It even has a section that talks about how often our athletes and scholars win state championships since we have a lot of stellar extracurricular options.
Maybe, if TO becomes something that sticks around, there should be some push for a standardized school profile so that AOs can compare. Iâve seen some profiles that say next to nothing. Looking at ours, you can see exactly where D fits and you can maybe even make a guess as to what her ACT or SAT score would have been in a more normal year by using her GPA, seeing where she fits in the class, and then looking at the range of scores. (Our school used 2020 stats for standardized tests on this yearâs profile since testing has been so messed up this year and that is called out on the profile.)
1 Like
My Dâs schoolâs profile had a lot of detail too.
But, more importantly AOs are very familiar with the schools in their region. They know which ones are actually rigorous and which have rampant grade inflation.
Courses also matter. AP Physics C, advanced math, AP lang/lit, etcâŠAre those courses on the transcript or was it AP enviro, AP stats, EuroâŠ
4 Likes
Our school does not rank, they got rid of decile ranking some years ago. I think AOs are familiar with the high schools in their regions, and probably go by reputation of the school. For example our HS regularly has about 20-25 kids going to top 25 schools, and probably 10 or so to top 10. while the surrounding high school may only send maybe 1 or 2. We also have about 15-20 national semi finalists every year. GPAs are definitely not inflated, especially for those taking honors and Ap classes.
I like the idea of a more detailed and standardized school profile. In your example, though, it still uses test scores to categorize. What if they arenât available?
Regional AOs are more familiar with some schools but not all. And I also find their knowledge is less than all-encompassing.
Some courses are good indicators, but not all students take these courses. Besides, course grades arenât given uniformly, unless we rely on AP exam scores (back to test scores?)