College interviewer asked my DD her political views

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Thank you for your responses. The university in question definitely skews left by all accounts. However, DD felt a good sense of inclusivity on her tours of the campus something that is important to her as she believes human growth cannot occur if we only surround ourselves with those with whom we agree--a form of confirmation bias. At first, DD thought the interviewer was simply trying to discern if she was politically informed or if she was capable of thinking on her feet and articulating a position--although there are certainly ways to go about this without asking a stranger something as personal as political affiliation. DD did an excellent job of responding to this question and the interviewer seemed impressed although it was evident that DD and the interviewer held similar political leanings. However, it all took a turn for the worse when DD was asked and subsequently responded that she had not participated in the march. In light of how this discussion (or perhaps better phrased interrogation) transpired, it became evident to her and to those with whom she shared the conversation that this was something more than just a "test" of her ability to think on her feet. Anyone who seriously considers this university understands that it is known for being far left of center. As DD is herself a progressive she welcomes the social activism. However, she does not want to attend a university that shuts down diversity of thought and is concerned that this interviewer may be indicative of that line of thinking. The interviewer said that she had been asked to pose the question of her political leanings (although there was no indication that the follow up questions regarding the march were "official,") and DD is trying to figure out if a university would actually make this a part of their application decision or if it was simply the interviewer (alumni) taking it upon herself to insert her own standards to the process. In DD's estimation the first would be a problem and the second, while offensive would should not factor into her decision. It really has clouded her views of the university as none of us would relish being criticized in this manner especially when there is an imbalance of power between the two people.

I think that your daughter should trust her personal impressions of the university over the conversational style of an alum who interviewed her. I also think that your daughter needs to recognize that even in a university that values political diversity and discourse, there will be people who disagree with her. Part of college is learning how to have those conversations in a civil manner. There is no way to do that if those conversations are not permitted to occur in the first place.

[Anonymous]

bear ... on one's readiness for college

A cursory, very shallow reflection and not a deep thought, "readiness for college."
If similar to you, DD will fit better elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

It *could* be a clever question, but actually I think it is a rogue interviewer. You should perhaps notify the admissions office that this person is asking such questions, and ask whether it's university policy.

[Anonymous]

I do think you are over thinking especially if this is an alum interview. That said, if your D strongly values a range of views in a school then this may be a gift in helping her school decision. She sounds like a thoughtful person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Thank you for your responses. The university in question definitely skews left by all accounts. However, DD felt a good sense of inclusivity on her tours of the campus something that is important to her as she believes human growth cannot occur if we only surround ourselves with those with whom we agree--a form of confirmation bias. At first, DD thought the interviewer was simply trying to discern if she was politically informed or if she was capable of thinking on her feet and articulating a position--although there are certainly ways to go about this without asking a stranger something as personal as political affiliation. DD did an excellent job of responding to this question and the interviewer seemed impressed although it was evident that DD and the interviewer held similar political leanings. However, it all took a turn for the worse when DD was asked and subsequently responded that she had not participated in the march. In light of how this discussion (or perhaps better phrased interrogation) transpired, it became evident to her and to those with whom she shared the conversation that this was something more than just a "test" of her ability to think on her feet. Anyone who seriously considers this university understands that it is known for being far left of center. As DD is herself a progressive she welcomes the social activism. However, she does not want to attend a university that shuts down diversity of thought and is concerned that this interviewer may be indicative of that line of thinking. The interviewer said that she had been asked to pose the question of her political leanings (although there was no indication that the follow up questions regarding the march were "official,") and DD is trying to figure out if a university would actually make this a part of their application decision or if it was simply the interviewer (alumni) taking it upon herself to insert her own standards to the process. In DD's estimation the first would be a problem and the second, while offensive would should not factor into her decision. It really has clouded her views of the university as none of us would relish being criticized in this manner especially when there is an imbalance of power between the two people.

I think that your daughter should trust her personal impressions of the university over the conversational style of an alum who interviewed her. I also think that your daughter needs to recognize that even in a university that values political diversity and discourse, there will be people who disagree with her. Part of college is learning how to have those conversations in a civil manner. There is no way to do that if those conversations are not permitted to occur in the first place.

There is a big difference between a willingness to discuss differences of opinions (as the applicant in question most definitely is seeking which is why she does not want to attend a university that excludes anyone based upon their political views even those with whom she disagrees) and asking a question in a application process that is a landmine potentially indicating a desire to exclude certain groups and has nothing to do with the student's qualifications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It *could* be a clever question, but actually I think it is a rogue interviewer. You should perhaps notify the admissions office that this person is asking such questions, and ask whether it's university policy.

No way. Admissions committee will see snowflake whose mommy or daddy calls admissions. If your DC is this bothered by the question, DC picks up the phone herself. Mommy or Daddy calling will increase chances of rejection I think. Colleges don't want those kids and rightfully so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Thank you for your responses. The university in question definitely skews left by all accounts. However, DD felt a good sense of inclusivity on her tours of the campus something that is important to her as she believes human growth cannot occur if we only surround ourselves with those with whom we agree--a form of confirmation bias. At first, DD thought the interviewer was simply trying to discern if she was politically informed or if she was capable of thinking on her feet and articulating a position--although there are certainly ways to go about this without asking a stranger something as personal as political affiliation. DD did an excellent job of responding to this question and the interviewer seemed impressed although it was evident that DD and the interviewer held similar political leanings. However, it all took a turn for the worse when DD was asked and subsequently responded that she had not participated in the march. In light of how this discussion (or perhaps better phrased interrogation) transpired, it became evident to her and to those with whom she shared the conversation that this was something more than just a "test" of her ability to think on her feet. Anyone who seriously considers this university understands that it is known for being far left of center. As DD is herself a progressive she welcomes the social activism. However, she does not want to attend a university that shuts down diversity of thought and is concerned that this interviewer may be indicative of that line of thinking. The interviewer said that she had been asked to pose the question of her political leanings (although there was no indication that the follow up questions regarding the march were "official,") and DD is trying to figure out if a university would actually make this a part of their application decision or if it was simply the interviewer (alumni) taking it upon herself to insert her own standards to the process. In DD's estimation the first would be a problem and the second, while offensive would should not factor into her decision. It really has clouded her views of the university as none of us would relish being criticized in this manner especially when there is an imbalance of power between the two people.

I think that your daughter should trust her personal impressions of the university over the conversational style of an alum who interviewed her. I also think that your daughter needs to recognize that even in a university that values political diversity and discourse, there will be people who disagree with her. Part of college is learning how to have those conversations in a civil manner. There is no way to do that if those conversations are not permitted to occur in the first place.

There is a big difference between a willingness to discuss differences of opinions (as the applicant in question most definitely is seeking which is why she does not want to attend a university that excludes anyone based upon their political views even those with whom she disagrees) and asking a question in a application process that is a landmine potentially indicating a desire to exclude certain groups and has nothing to do with the student's qualifications.

I don't see any evidence in your long-winded posts (paragraphs, please) that indicates that your daughter will be excluded based on her answer to this question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It *could* be a clever question, but actually I think it is a rogue interviewer. You should perhaps notify the admissions office that this person is asking such questions, and ask whether it's university policy.

No way. Admissions committee will see snowflake whose mommy or daddy calls admissions. If your DC is this bothered by the question, DC picks up the phone herself. Mommy or Daddy calling will increase chances of rejection I think. Colleges don't want those kids and rightfully so.

If interviewer was sexist, lecherous, or otherwise inappropriate with a minor, by all means call yourself but not over this. This is your daughter's call. Literally.

[Anonymous]

Didn't read the OPs wall of text, but why wouldn't your kid google the interviewer first? No need to lie, but at least you'd know which landmines to avoid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the OPs wall of text, but why wouldn't your kid google the interviewer first? No need to lie, but at least you'd know which landmines to avoid.

If you didn't read the question or response why would you pipe in with a response? While there is nothing wrong with googling an interviewer (all of my children have), advising a student to deny who they are to fit the views of an interviewer is indeed problematic. If you had read the "wall of text" you would see that the student and the interviewer did agree. The student just didn't participate in the women's march and the interviewer had a huge problem with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DD has had a bunch of college interviews. Most questions have been the generic "Why do you want to attend xyz?," "What do you want to study and why?," Tell me a little bit about yourself," etc. The questions you would expect. However, a recent interviewer asked her about her political views, specifically the last election and whether she attended the march. How does one's political views bear in any way on one's readiness for college? It is a landmine question no matter what views you hold. She handled herself very well when answering the question, but seriously why is this anyone's business? DD is a progressive but she was very put off by the idea that students leaning conservative would perhaps be disadvantaged for their beliefs. It really turned her off the university (which admittedly skews left) as she believes a learning environment with true diversity in all areas, including thought, best prepares the student body academically and socially for the future. The idea the a university would want to create an insular political environment was disconcerting. Has anyone else's child encountered something like this? Up to this point, this university was her top choice. My guess it was a rogue interviewer and I have suggested she not factor this interview in the decision process too heavily. What do you think? I know some universities provide interviewers questions to choose from. Is it conceivable that a university would try to weed out a certain student body in this manner? If so, DD is adamant that she would not attend this university. On the one hand I am proud of DD for her openness to people of different views as maintaining a dialogue is the only hope for healing our nation. I do respect her desire to not participate in an environment that would penalize individuals for holding opposing views, but this school has a top notch program for what she wants to study and I would hate to see her cross off a school because of what may be a rogue interviewer.

Great. So now we're going to have a bunch of affluent high school kids attending protests for the purpose to stack their extra curriculars. Virtue signaling is becoming commoditized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Thank you for your responses. The university in question definitely skews left by all accounts. However, DD felt a good sense of inclusivity on her tours of the campus something that is important to her as she believes human growth cannot occur if we only surround ourselves with those with whom we agree--a form of confirmation bias. At first, DD thought the interviewer was simply trying to discern if she was politically informed or if she was capable of thinking on her feet and articulating a position--although there are certainly ways to go about this without asking a stranger something as personal as political affiliation. DD did an excellent job of responding to this question and the interviewer seemed impressed although it was evident that DD and the interviewer held similar political leanings. However, it all took a turn for the worse when DD was asked and subsequently responded that she had not participated in the march. In light of how this discussion (or perhaps better phrased interrogation) transpired, it became evident to her and to those with whom she shared the conversation that this was something more than just a "test" of her ability to think on her feet. Anyone who seriously considers this university understands that it is known for being far left of center. As DD is herself a progressive she welcomes the social activism. However, she does not want to attend a university that shuts down diversity of thought and is concerned that this interviewer may be indicative of that line of thinking. The interviewer said that she had been asked to pose the question of her political leanings (although there was no indication that the follow up questions regarding the march were "official,") and DD is trying to figure out if a university would actually make this a part of their application decision or if it was simply the interviewer (alumni) taking it upon herself to insert her own standards to the process. In DD's estimation the first would be a problem and the second, while offensive would should not factor into her decision. It really has clouded her views of the university as none of us would relish being criticized in this manner especially when there is an imbalance of power between the two people.

I think that your daughter should trust her personal impressions of the university over the conversational style of an alum who interviewed her. I also think that your daughter needs to recognize that even in a university that values political diversity and discourse, there will be people who disagree with her. Part of college is learning how to have those conversations in a civil manner. There is no way to do that if those conversations are not permitted to occur in the first place.

There is a big difference between a willingness to discuss differences of opinions (as the applicant in question most definitely is seeking which is why she does not want to attend a university that excludes anyone based upon their political views even those with whom she disagrees) and asking a question in a application process that is a landmine potentially indicating a desire to exclude certain groups and has nothing to do with the student's qualifications.

I don't see any evidence in your long-winded posts (paragraphs, please) that indicates that your daughter will be excluded based on her answer to this question.

I disagree with PP. The way I read it you inferred that the interview took a turn for the worse after the question about attending the march. I think the alum could definitely come away from the conversation with a negative perception and convey that in any way they want to the school. However, I would not have your daughter contact the school about this before decisions are sent out. If she doesn't get in I believe you can request more info from the school. I would wait until after the decision and have her write something to the admissions office voicing her concern about this inappropriate line of questioning. Doing it before the decision seems a greater gamble on it turning out badly then doing it after.

[Anonymous]

As an interviewer, it's a stupid question because it might alienate a student and cast the school in a negative light - as it did here.

First and foremost, alumni interviewers are supposed to be making the case for our schools, not acting as admissions officers. I would only ask about activism if a student brought it up in to gauge the depth of their involvement in order to highlight any leadership role they might have.

One of the self-justifications of elite institutions is that students form personal bonds across the ideological spectrum, so future influencers/policymakers/leaders can relate to each other and work together for the common good. You can't have much of an elite institution if you only have one side of the aisle. That's why SMU, Liberty, BYU, and even Notre Dame will never be considered elite. The Ivies don't make that mistake.

[Anonymous]

The guy who interviewed me and my friends for Princeton was really unappealing (different times, different reasons). He turned me off from applying. Since then, I have done interviewing for the Ivy I ended up attending and can promise you I was barely vetted.

In retrospect, how stupid is it to think that this guy's opinions, demeanor, or whatever should have turned me off to the whole school. He might have been able to affect my application, but he just wasn't representative of Princeton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Thank you for your responses. The university in question definitely skews left by all accounts. However, DD felt a good sense of inclusivity on her tours of the campus something that is important to her as she believes human growth cannot occur if we only surround ourselves with those with whom we agree--a form of confirmation bias. At first, DD thought the interviewer was simply trying to discern if she was politically informed or if she was capable of thinking on her feet and articulating a position--although there are certainly ways to go about this without asking a stranger something as personal as political affiliation. DD did an excellent job of responding to this question and the interviewer seemed impressed although it was evident that DD and the interviewer held similar political leanings. However, it all took a turn for the worse when DD was asked and subsequently responded that she had not participated in the march. In light of how this discussion (or perhaps better phrased interrogation) transpired, it became evident to her and to those with whom she shared the conversation that this was something more than just a "test" of her ability to think on her feet. Anyone who seriously considers this university understands that it is known for being far left of center. As DD is herself a progressive she welcomes the social activism. However, she does not want to attend a university that shuts down diversity of thought and is concerned that this interviewer may be indicative of that line of thinking. The interviewer said that she had been asked to pose the question of her political leanings (although there was no indication that the follow up questions regarding the march were "official,") and DD is trying to figure out if a university would actually make this a part of their application decision or if it was simply the interviewer (alumni) taking it upon herself to insert her own standards to the process. In DD's estimation the first would be a problem and the second, while offensive would should not factor into her decision. It really has clouded her views of the university as none of us would relish being criticized in this manner especially when there is an imbalance of power between the two people.

Then just don't go where you will fill uncomfortable. It's as simple as that.