<p>caltech doesn't interview.... do they?!?!!?</p>
<p>Because they are lazy. No.</p>
<p>I went to an open house that they had and they said they dont do interviews because it wouldnt be fair to people unable to recieve an interview because of location or language barriers.</p>
<p>It's a pretty small school; there are probably not enough alumni to make it really feasible.</p>
<p>Actually, in the past, it was professors that interviewed every student. They really loved that system, but had to stop because it wasn't feasible as the applicant pool grew. Even now, though, there are only ~20,000 living alumni (the same number of people Berkeley puts out every two years), and only a small percentage of that would be available for interviews.</p>
<p>I'm happy they don't interview -- Not like I don't interview well, but it's stressful and I hate feeling personally judged. </p>
<p>On the other hand, my MIT interviewer was a funny old man and loved me. Even if he stood me up for my interview TWICE. Yeah, it was stressful.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the best admissions process would be one where an applicant could personally go before the committee and argue his or her case as if it were in court. At least that way, if you were rejected, you know that you went out with a fight rather than a whimper.</p>
<p>Obviously, the above would never happen, but an interview is the next best thing. It is your chance to show the admissions office what a great person you are. It is not (usually) their tool to judge people or weed out undesirables. Interviews are a part of life; you will have many of them, and some will be more stressful than others. It is best to take them for what they are and use them to your advantage.</p>
<p>Interviews benefit assertive, charming, well-spoken people. If you use interviews, you will essentially be selecting the smartest people who are reasonably assertive, charming, and well-spoken. That is not quite the same as just selecting the smartest people, which is what some schools might be seeking.</p>
<p>my MIT interviewer had NO hobbies; what was I supposed to tlak about... I think he lived alone</p>
<p>What qualities, then, make a person smart? Someone who does exceptionally well in the olympiads, for example, can simply know and apply the material very well -- the exams are not exactly difficult. There is no real synthesis. In dialogue, however, there has to be synthesis, as one cannot really recycle the same wit in every occasion, with every person. Thus, an interview would test a person's ability to adapt, think on his/her feet, and make connections between ideas -- all skills that a very logically sound person can be expected to possess to some extent. "Witty", after all, implies "well-spoken" and "charming," though I concede that it does not necessarily imply "assertive."</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Talk about his career, how your experiences relate to it. Talk about a good book or movie you've read or seen recently -- or even a journal report. Talk about current events (though it's probably safer to steer away from the hotter partisan topics and views.) Show that you have an opinion. If all else fails, talk about MIT. You at least have that topic in common.</p>
<p>I think you underestimate how hard it is for some people to talk comfortably in front of an interviewer. Plus when you do interviews you add in a level of randomness. Sometimes you'll click with an interviewer and really impress them, sometimes you'll like something completely different from the interviewer, which might cause the interviewer to be less impressed (yes, it happens -- given two equal candidates, an interviewer will sometimes noticably favor the one interested in their area of expertise). Plus, what about flukes? I got lost on the way to my MIT interview and showed up an hour late. As a result, I was so flustered that I never recovered and completely flubbed it. While this is a fact of life in job interviews, a single job interview is not nearly as life changing as a college interview. Plus, do you really want to reject someone just because they were tongue-tied at their interview?</p>
<p>Interviewees can recover from flukes. They can just explain in the thank you note when they're feeling more eloquent, "Dear so-and-so, thanks for having me, etc. It was a pleasure meeting you, even though I did get a little lost on the way! I'm glad that you liked such-and-such about me. I had also intended to add that (whatever you forgot to say here)." And so forth. That's why you always remember to ask for contact info before you leave an interview.</p>
<p>College interviews generally are more of a swing factor than anything else anyway, I'd assume its unlikely that someone would be rejected only because of an interview. And, with a good follow-up note, even an interview you flub will probably be harmless.</p>
<p>Oh, and this can probably be left unsaid, but if you write a note, please don't give the poor guy an essay. ;)</p>
<p>frozen-tears --</p>
<p>As you might have guessed, I'm the last person one would expect to be making the anti-interview argument. A world with interviews definitely favors me and people like me. I imagine you're in the same boat. And when reading applications for Caltech, I've sometimes wished that I could have the student in front of me so that I could ask some questions and see whether the student is a conscientious, inert bore or an interesting thinker. My first-order temptation is to posit a strong link between [assertiveness, wit, etc.] and intelligence, whatever that is.</p>
<p>But I think I'm learning as I go along that positing such a link might be a huge mistake. A few times, I've been completely blown away by the unexpected and brilliant insights of people whom you'd at first classsify somewhere between potatoes and giant tree sloths on the assertiveness scale. Some Caltech professors who are among the top three people in their field are shockingly shy, retiring types. I think in some disciplines, that kind of attitude can actually be an academic asset because it creates the need for a creative outlet other than conversation, etc. -- and so the intellectual capital that most of us waste on transient witticisms gets poured into [insert hard field here] -- with results. There are shy, interview-inept people that have definitely changed the world for the better by orders of magnitude. They would have been a huge loss for us (and science) to miss, notwithstanding your remarks about the ease of interviews for really smart people.</p>
<p>Needless to say, a powerless and inactive mind often causes a shy and apathetic demeanor. But to reverse the implication is, I think, a mistaken bigotry on the part of us who are too unimaginitive to see that intelligence might manifest itself in other people differently than it does in ourselves and most people we know. I like Caltech because as an institution, it has the maturity to see that intellect isn't always cocktail party-deep, and that the deeper kind can be worth having, too.</p>
<p>Ben's eloquent post should be required reading for every college admissions person.</p>
<p>Ben, I respect your perspective a great deal, and I'm curious as to how one might pragmatically identify this particular brand of talent of which you speak. Certainly it must take a degree of assertiveness in order for an individual to make the best use of the opportunities present? And what of those who are less literarily inclined? I imagine that such occur more frequently than shy, interview-inept people. Should essays then be disregarded as well? I admit I cannot boast even anecdotal evidence. (Actually, come to think of it, an application consisting of three box questions really wouldn't be such a bad idea at all.) And of course, I can't deny that Caltech's dynamics -- and Caltech's dynamic students -- are fascinating. It's a microcosm like no other.</p>
<p>By the way, Ben, you're nearing senior membership. Hehe :p</p>
<p>I was thinking similar thoughts: should we get rid of the essay, too? Clearly not. I think the balance of "pure analytic" versus "social and verbal" components of the application influences the balance of the people you select. Obviously Caltech is tilted somewhat -- but not 100% -- to the former side. Having an interview would skew things toward the latter.</p>
<p>As for identifying this shy kind of intelligence -- that's tough. In my actual experience, the people who are described as very shy and who would probably bomb an interview if we had one often express themselves through some kind of incredibly beautiful drawing or other intricate art -- or some publishable math research (which amounts to the same thing), or something. So you can see an active mind in slightly esoteric ways. My point was that judging on social ease (or even mere competence) can miss people who have a well of creativity deep enough to produce those things but just can't show it to you on command in an interview.</p>
<p>The part of my thinking that's changed is that everyone worth anything should be able to articulate what they're worth when asked. I used to think exactly like you in this respect. I guess a few choice encounters have begun to change my mind. Perhaps sometime I can run a field trip to exhibit the counterexample animals.</p>
<p>I think shyness has WAY WAY more to do with upbringing than intelligence (I'm pretty shy, but I can still do an interview)</p>
<p>"My point was that judging on social ease (or even mere competence) can miss people who have a well of creativity deep enough to produce those things but just can't show it to you on command in an interview."</p>
<p>Being another Techer, I've met a number of people here who are absolutely brilliant, but would probably do terribly in an interview. Not necessarily due to shyness, although that's one of the reasons. Some of them are very nearly unable to have a "normal" conversation, mostly due to an intensely focused mind. Others are simply very introverted, and thus would probably come across as unsure of themselves in a social situation, but in the realm of academics, they're incredibly skilled.</p>
<p>I myself was TERRIFIED for all of the interviews I had during the admissions process... I hate talking to strangers, and I'm not very good at the whole "selling myself" thing, at least in person. Given time to consider and, for example, edit what I'm saying in an essay, I'm much better at representing myself.</p>
<p>Although everyone knows, I want to re-emphasize to the discussion that the interview is not solely created to judge the applicant and use it in the selection process. It is also there so the student can really learn about the college on a personal level (away from all the not-so-100%-accurate posters/ads that say,"our college is best!") and feel the college life "culture." </p>
<p>The primary reason I really enjoyed the interviews I had is because I never thought that the interviewer had a intimidating "upper standing" as a judge. Although you have to be reasonably humble, you never have to lose your confidence and shrink down; it's a mutual exchange. You're there to shine yourself after all.</p>