What if your interviewer was really Byerly, or Northstarmom?

<p>Wow, you guys are bashing on NSM a lot here. I don't really know Byerly, so I would go with NSM. Besides, she's helped me tons before :)</p>

<p>In over 20 years at the job, I've probably interviewed a couple hundred applicants; some have been brilliant - future superstars - and some haven't been. Veteran alumni interviewers have as much or more experience with applicants, face to face, as some people in the admissions office. The role, of course, is not to assess the transcript or check the SAT score - all that is in the file - but to assess the person behind the application.</p>

<hr>

<p>About the "political questions":</p>

<p>The August 2005 revision of the Interviewer Handbook has this particular warning:</p>

<p>"Avoid prolongued discussion of political and personal issues. Interviewers are not usually judgmental about the content of an applixant's political opinions ... They use the interaction to gauge whether the students ideas are original and well-reasoned, or simply parroted from elsewhere....</p>

<p>Yet students report that prolongued discussion of difficult or sensitive subjects can ruin an interview. Susch conversations include probing for opinions on political topics...</p>

<p>Students' reflections on these topics can reveal the degree to which they are aware of the world around them, and can yield insights about an applicant's background or personality. But discussing such matters, particular;ly at length, can reasonably be construed as an invasion of privacy."</p>

<p>Does Stanford do interviews? Why or why not? </p>

<p>I heard a funny story once about a guy who was a genuine national-level star in a particular EC, and he was described by the person who knew him during high school days as "seriously weird, so weird that he got into none of the colleges he applied to that required an interview, even though he got into all the colleges he applied to that don't require an interview." That's food for thought.</p>

<p>Stanford has not done interviews in the past, but I know the new Admissions Director is considering changes, and this may be among them. </p>

<p>Personnel from the Harvard Admissions Office (and perhaps other outposts) were invited to Palo Alto recently in order to pick their brains about such matters. I gather Stanford will be adopting a version of the Harvard system for committee review of admission applications.</p>

<p>That seems to be so, which is probably an improvement.</p>

<p>I would be the first to argue that Stanford's admissions process needs significant reform.</p>

<p>"Do you really think that admissions committees would base a significant</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>As an alumna interviewer,I've been grateful for the training Harvard provides for those of us in this role. At the last such workshop (October), the Admissions Officer described the interview as a key piece in the puzzle - that is, the Committee sees each element of the application as pieces of a jigsaw that all have to fit together for a succesful candidate.</p>

<p>""Do you really think that admissions committees would base a significant</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>I think that most Harvard alums are bright enough and sophisticated enough to discern which applicants have been packaged by consultants.</p>

<p>It's relatively easy to package the written part of the application, including exaggerating "achievements" that are trivial.</p>

<p>It's very difficult to package an applicant so that they can handle an in person interview by an alum. Insightful questions can result in Harvard's determining which applicants are really impressive and which have been packaged.</p>

<p>For instance, I interviewed an applicant who showed me a resume that mentioned the applicant had made a speech to a national organization. My follow-up questions gleaned the info that the "national organization" was basically a group of youths who tagged along to a conference that their parents were attending for the parents' professional organization.</p>

<p>The speech that the student said they were so proud of making was just 5 minutes long and was something that every one of the students who went had to do because it was part of some kind of training that the conference provided to the students while the parents were going to meetings. It was no honor and not a big deal.</p>

<p>That kind of info included in an interview report is the kind of thing that Harvard will pay attention to.</p>

<p>I am sure that Harvard also paid attention to my description of an interview with a student who unapologetically showed up 40 minutes early and then sat during the interview with snot dripping down his face. One of the things that interviewers are asked to determine is whether an applicant is the type of person who'd make a good roommate, and in this student's case, the answer was a resounding "no."</p>

<p>Harvard asks interviewers to support their opinions with specific examples, so if interviewers do this and their examples make sense, Harvard is likely to value their opinions. Interviewers can provide important info that is not possible to glean from the paper application.</p>

<p>"I am sure that Harvard also paid attention to my description of an interview with a student who unapologetically showed up 40 minutes early and then sat during the interview with snot dripping down his face. "</p>

<p>Wow...:)</p>

<p>So Northstarmom has at least THREE rules:</p>

<ol>
<li>Show up on time;</li>
<li>No jeans; and</li>
<li>Wipe your nose!</li>
</ol>

<p>This lady is TOUGH!</p>

<p>I am a donating alum, and I would be furious if Harvard was admitting students I gave the thumbs down or otherwise wasting my time. When I interviewed, I was not just happy to be involved in some Harvard-related song and dance. This task is no cocktail party. It takes a lot of time and effort to schedule each interview and then write up a multi-page analysis with quotes and examples.</p>

<p>To supplement what NSM wrote, it is very hard to lie when you're asked a direct question face-to-face. I met one URM straight-A valedictorian who admitted that she hated history and English and only cared about math and physics. No one is ever going to say that in an essay, and you couldn't tell from her transcript, but she was a poor match for a liberal arts program where she'd be obliged to take eight courses in the humanities. Harvard wants kids who are enthusiastic about exploring different interests. She did not get in.</p>

<p>So Northstarmom has at least THREE rules:</p>

<ol>
<li>Show up on time;</li>
<li>No jeans; and</li>
<li>Wipe your nose!</li>
</ol>

<p>Some slight clarifications of my fellow alum Byerly's post.</p>

<p>While I think it's a good idea for applicants not to wear jeans (because I think that dressing at least business casual indicates that the applicant is taking the interview seriously), I wouldn't do a thumbs down on applicants who wore jeans. I would, however, do a thumbs down on applicants who wore something sexist or racist.</p>

<p>The third thing that is important to me is: Tell the truth. </p>

<p>I have caught applicants in lies, and I do let Harvard know when that happens. </p>

<p>Examples of lies included a student who greatly exaggerated their work in an EC that I happened to volunteer with.</p>

<p>Another student lied about their favorite book, which was an obscure book that I happened to have read. There was no indication that the student had read the book. </p>

<p>Another lied about their parents' education and then contradicted themselves about this during the interview. When I asked about the discrepancy, the student was unable to give a coherent explanation. "Um, I forgot that my parents went to college because they did this when I was in middle school" is not a good explanation for passing oneself off as the first person in one's family to attend college. </p>

<p>One last piece of advice: If you attend a college fair and find out that an alum, not a Harvard adcom, is representing Harvard, do NOT use this as an opportunity to show off to your friends by harassing the alum by deliberately asking a lot of stupid questions.</p>

<p>One student did this to me. The questions all were along the line of, "I am a senior who's a loser, bad grades, no ECs. What can I do to get into Harvard?"</p>

<p>As a line of students with serious questions waited for the student to finish and as I tried to politely get the student to move on, the student continued with that inanity. The next time that I ran into that student was with the Harvard adcom when the 2 of us visited the student's school. </p>

<p>The student (who actually had high stats, strong ECs) must have been high on the adcom's radar because the adcom asked whether I had met the student before. I told the adcom what the student's questions were at the college fair. The student was not accepted. I don't know whether my comments influenced the adcom, but if I were a student, I wouldn't risk my admission by trying to make my friends laugh at an alum's expense.</p>

<p>Although there's a myth that Harvard alums and students are snarky and rude, those are not the type of people that Harvard wants to admit. One can be intelligent and confident without getting one's kicks by putting other people down.</p>

<p>NSM, what made me upset is when my interviewer for Yale was a bit unforgiving, in my opinion. What if the interviewer is very wrong in their analysis and does not include all the details? I was accepted to Yale but I did not like my interview. My dad had died a few months into senior year, and I had been a valedictorian applying to colleges. However, as you can guess, that death made keeping the rank much more difficult, and I had so many things to do. My Yale interviewer was basically putting me down for not keeping up with current events, newspapers, television, radio, etc, even though he was informed of my situation. For about an hour and a half (within a three-hour interview) I was being politically grilled about various issues (some of which I was able to give my own opinions about, but others I was not familiar with because I had simply not looked into it like I used to).</p>

<p>How would you assess one in my situation if you had to give such an interview? How would you view a death?</p>

<p>Legend,
That sounds like the interviewer was not doing their job. I assume that Yale's interview policies are similar to Harvard's. Interviews should be conversations, not inquisitions. Regardless of whether or not the student is accepted or gets a good recommendation from the interviewer, the student should be left with the impression that they were given a fair chance to illuminate their personality, interests and skills.</p>

<p>I know that Harvard also recommends that interviews not exceed one hour.</p>

<p>If you had had a Harvard interview that went as you described, it would have been appropriate for you to contact the adcoms and request another interview. Doing so for the kind of reasons that you mention would not be held against you. Adcoms do not want students' chances hurt by inept or unfair interviewers, and they do want students to leave interviews feeling that they were given a fair opportunity.</p>

<p>When evaluating interviews, adcoms don't accept the interviewer's word simply on faith. The rest of the application is taken into account so things like a recent death in the family would be considered. In addition, the interviewer is expected to support their views by quotes from the student.</p>

<p>My guess is that adcoms would discount a negative report by interviewer who puts down a student for not keeping their rank or knowing about current events despite having a parent recently die.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, alumni interviewers are volunteers, so it can be very hard for colleges to turn down their services when the interviewers are inept. Students who have interviewers whose behavior is inappropriate should let the alumni office know so that either the interview can be ignored or another interview can be arranged.</p>

<p>I guess I had not been sure whether or not it was up to me to decide whether or not it was an unfair interview, because I had put my efforts into keeping my rank where it was, which I was able to do, but school and mourning were pretty much the only things I was able to do, honestly speaking, at the expense of "current events." In that sense I felt like it was justifiable to say I was not keeping up with current events, but I would say that they weren't nearly as important as everything else that had been going on.</p>

<p>I am very sorry to hear how poorly you were treated in your interview.</p>

<p>An interview should not be an examination on current events. It would be OK for an interviewer to find out about whether an applicant is interested in current events, but (unless the applicant has expressed interest in a field like journalism or politics) there are far more important things to focus on in an interview. An interview should focus on things related to the applicant's character. interests, skills, and what the student could bring to and get from the college.</p>

<p>In your case, it's very understandable that you were not keeping up with current events, and I can't think of any reason why the interviewer would have focused on that or put such info in your evaluation. For most applicants, displaying no knowledge of current events would indicate a superficialness and shallowness that would be inappropriate for a college like H or Y.</p>

<p>If I had been your interviewer, in addition to various questions designed to find out your interests, academic strengths, etc., I also would have wanted to know how you were coping with your dad's death and any illness that had led to his death. I would have been looking for indications about your resilience. Your keeping your grades up despite the loss of your father would have been a strong indication that you are a very resilient person who'd have lots to add and to get from a place like Harvard or Yale.</p>

<p>When I taught college, I had 2 stellar students who did very well academically even though their parents were dying. In job and law school recommendations for the students, I mentioned how well the students had coped despite the stress that they were under. My recommendations helped one student get a much wanted job, the other get into Georgetown, her first choice.</p>

<p>Without in the least impugning the qualifications of NSM or Byerly, I think it is unfortunate that vast majority of admissions offices at top schools no longer offer inhouse interviews conducted by professional staff. Next to GPA nad grades, I would say that a personal interview tells the most about the person. Some alums interviewers are good, some not. Some get listened to, others not, which is unfair and unreliable. One school that does offer staff interviews is Haverford, who should be commended.</p>

<p>NorthStarMom, thank you SO MUCH for all your information - I have a Harvard interview tomorrow, and I was so unsure about what exactly it met. You cleared that up for me one-two-three :)</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>I don't know how it is this year, but two years ago my daughter had in-house interviews with adcom staff at both Yale and Princeton. But having completed that, both schools later insisted on having alumni interviews as well. It appeared to me that the in-house interview was sort of optional, but the REAL interview was the alumni one. For whatever reason they seemed to value that one more, or at least they were far more focused on making sure that the alumni interview was completed and the report filed. </p>

<p>Pomona College was different. They were very keen on the in-house interview.</p>

<p>Some schools, such as the afore-mentioned Haverford, view the in-house interview as a key factor - not so much for what is said or not said, but as an expression of interest making it more likely (in the opinion of their enrollment management firm) that the interviewee will enroll if admitted.</p>

<p>Haverford, famously, is said to reject or waitlist anyone not willing to make the trek to the Main Line prior to April 1.</p>

<p>Not surprising that some schools pay attention to such factors - particularly places like Pomona and Haverford where the RD yield can be under 30%.</p>

<p>Hmmm.. I can imagine the admission office staff at Harvard interviewing all 22,000 applicants! When would they have the time to actually read the applications?</p>