<p>"To allow in house interviews for all of those students would mean greatly expanding the admissions staff, which is composed completely of Harvard alums. To do that would, of course, cost $. How'd you feel about spending $500 to apply to Harvard? Considering that 90% of Harvard applicants are rejected do you think it would be worth it to Harvard and the applicants to go to that effort to interview everyone in house?"</p>
<p>Good point. To save more $$, Harvard should fire the admissions staff and let you and Byerly pick the class. The football team couldn't get any worse.</p>
<p>The last 3 games were victories by scores of 29-3 (not as close as the score indicates), 54-7 and 42-14. In all 3 games, they were way ahead at halftime, and eased up in the second half to hold the score down.</p>
<p>If it wasn't for allowing a totally avoidable kickoff return for a TD vs Princeton, they'd be headed for immortality!</p>
<p>Yes, Brown is a mortal lock for the title, with only winless Columbia left to play. Brown will finish 6-1, with its only loss being to Harvard in OT by a score of 38-35.</p>
<p>Harvard will finish 5-2 IF it beats Yale next week.</p>
<p>There is a piece of hardware, a cup, surmounted with a sculpture by Dr. Robert Tait McKenzie, entitled "Onslaught" (1911) which depicts a rugby scrimmage and is now the Ivy League football trophy.</p>
<p>Where are the grammar police? "What if your interviewer were..." rather than "was", right?</p>
<p>eyez, have you had Latin? It really helps with use of the subjunctive in English.</p>
<p>NSM and Byerly are kinder, and such grammar subtleties probably have also gone the way of rules such as to not split infinitives. </p>
<p>Serious question to NSM and Byerly: Do you think adcom members are of a certain age when these things were important, or, as I imagine, the battles about subjunctive, infinitives, shall vs. will, etc. were lost a long time ago? And would some usages (I "shall", rather than I "will" do blah, blah) in an essay come across as stilted? I don't have any high schoolers around the house with who to check out such arcane matters. Methinks grammar in the essays are still important, but she (NSM) and him (Byerly) would no best? (Or is it, "would no better"?)</p>
<p>that vast majority of admissions offices at top schools no longer offer inhouse interviews conducted by professional staff.</p>
<br>
<p>No one has mentioned an important reason why this is no longer done at many schools -- because it offers an edge to students who have the money and resources to visit the campus as applicants. Harvard offers financial aid for low-income admitted students to come and visit, but cannot do so for every applicant. Once upon a time, Harvard allowed applicants to substitute an on-campus interview for an alumni interview (I had one when I first applied, unsuccessfully, in 1994). This arguably offered a benefit to students who could afford to come and persuade their admissions officer in person. The rule change was implemented in part to eliminate that advantage.</p>
<p>"This arguably offered a benefit to students who could afford to come and persuade their admissions officer in person. The rule change was implemented in part to eliminate that advantage."</p>
<p>I feel it hurts the process. How you present yourself is a big part of how you will fit in at the school. If you want to see the effect of this at your school, just look around.</p>
