Why have some schools discontinued alumni interviews?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There were never intended to help the student. The process is designed to keepe alumni involved so alumni give dollars.

The kind of alumnus who has big money to give isn't going to have time to interview prospective students (unless known to him personally). That guy is going to help his own kid, not rando kids.

The alumni interviewers who I met way back when sure didn't give off a big money vibe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alimni interviews are just vehicles to feed the egos of alums

Exactly. They're long been an alumni engagement tool with little to no impact on admissions decisions.

This - heard many such interviewers express frustration that their recs were usually ignored …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There were never intended to help the student. The process is designed to keepe alumni involved so alumni give dollars.

The kind of alumnus who has big money to give isn't going to have time to interview prospective students (unless known to him personally). That guy is going to help his own kid, not rando kids.

The alumni interviewers who I met way back when sure didn't give off a big money vibe.

Agree with this. Many alumni interviewers are doing interviews in lieu of giving $$$s.

[Anonymous]

I had an alumni interview when applying to a college I really wanted to go to that is very prestigious. He scheduled it on a Sunday and wasn't of my religion. My father made me change the date because of church and it was important to him that I not miss this. I still was under his roof and he was paying for college, so I complied.

The interviewer brought it up and proceeded to give me a hard time about changing an interview for church.

I got rejected, the only college that rejected me.

I completely agree that alumni interviews are biased.

[Anonymous]

Really ineffective and inefficient method for college admissions (plus almost impossible to guarantee any meaningful quality control measures). Save that stuff for Greek rush!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They make it sound like an equity issue. Can someone explain what the issue is?

My guess is the implicit bias of alumni who don’t represent current day diversity. It would increase chances of selecting students of the same backgrounds as traditional alumni. It might also discourage diverse candidates.

This. Because you get Ivy interviewers like my 75yr old MIL who will recommend a Black applicant, but call him an “articulate boy” and then call to say she felt uncomfortable 2 towns away from home - she always meets the students at a Starbucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had an alumni interview when applying to a college I really wanted to go to that is very prestigious. He scheduled it on a Sunday and wasn't of my religion. My father made me change the date because of church and it was important to him that I not miss this. I still was under his roof and he was paying for college, so I complied.

The interviewer brought it up and proceeded to give me a hard time about changing an interview for church.

I got rejected, the only college that rejected me.

I completely agree that alumni interviews are biased.

Doesn't matter if it's biased because it seems the AOs don't even bother looking at those interviews.

[Anonymous]

Many schools elimated interviews entirely, not just alumni interviews.

[Anonymous]

Two reasons. Equity or the appearance of lack of equity since not everyone gets an interview. Second reason, alumni complaining that the wonderful kids they recommend don’t get admitted.

In the same way COVID exposed the problems with K-12 education, October 7th and the resultant issues on college campuses exposed the problems with higher education in the US.

Alumni are rightfully angry and will withhold monetary and other support until these problems are corrected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alimni interviews are just vehicles to feed the egos of alums

Exactly. They're long been an alumni engagement tool with little to no impact on admissions decisions.

+1 MIT interviewed my DS, but in the email, it stated that "you might not get an interview if we can't find an interviewer in your region, but this will not impact your application."

Then why have interviews at all? People who don't get interviews would be missing a data point on the application that those who did get interviews have. It's like an extra recommendation if the interview goes well.

Also, I do think think that equity has a role in this because the Harvard case showed that the Interviewers would give high marks for the applicant for "personality", but the AOs, who never met the applicant, would give low marks.

Getting rid of the interviews is a good way to side step the bias that the Harvard case showed.

There were never intended to help the student. The process is designed to keepe alumni involved so alumni give dollars.

You mean it's a way to make alumni feel that their kids might have a better chance? So, legacy and $$ is the reason so many kids have to go through this BS process? It doesn't benefit the college applicant so much as the Interviewer and the college for money?

What a load of BS these private college admissions is.

I don't think it's about legacy admissions, although it is about money. It's about the schools telling alumni that their opinions are valued and making them feel connected to the school -- so that they'll donate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had an alumni interview when applying to a college I really wanted to go to that is very prestigious. He scheduled it on a Sunday and wasn't of my religion. My father made me change the date because of church and it was important to him that I not miss this. I still was under his roof and he was paying for college, so I complied.

The interviewer brought it up and proceeded to give me a hard time about changing an interview for church.

I got rejected, the only college that rejected me.

I completely agree that alumni interviews are biased.

Doesn't matter if it's biased because it seems the AOs don't even bother looking at those interviews.

They do review them if they offer them, they read the reports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alimni interviews are just vehicles to feed the egos of alums

x1 billion

And to encourage alumni engagement and donations

-former interviewer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two reasons. Equity or the appearance of lack of equity since not everyone gets an interview. Second reason, alumni complaining that the wonderful kids they recommend don’t get admitted.

In the same way COVID exposed the problems with K-12 education, October 7th and the resultant issues on college campuses exposed the problems with higher education in the US.

Alumni are rightfully angry and will withhold monetary and other support until these problems are corrected.

I doubt "equity" issues causes alums to withhold monetary support. That seems to be more a red herring obsession by a few. But blatant antisemitism is unquestionably causing alums to withhold monetary support.

I interviewed when I was still a relatively new college grad in my 20s and none of the people I interviewed over an eight year span got in save one who was waitlisted. Elite Ivy. It was a waste of time. Nothing to do with equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had an alumni interview when applying to a college I really wanted to go to that is very prestigious. He scheduled it on a Sunday and wasn't of my religion. My father made me change the date because of church and it was important to him that I not miss this. I still was under his roof and he was paying for college, so I complied.

The interviewer brought it up and proceeded to give me a hard time about changing an interview for church.

I got rejected, the only college that rejected me.

I completely agree that alumni interviews are biased.

Doesn't matter if it's biased because it seems the AOs don't even bother looking at those interviews.

They do review them if they offer them, they read the reports.

And the Harvard case showed that they disregard their inputs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There were never intended to help the student. The process is designed to keepe alumni involved so alumni give dollars.

The kind of alumnus who has big money to give isn't going to have time to interview prospective students (unless known to him personally). That guy is going to help his own kid, not rando kids.

The alumni interviewers who I met way back when sure didn't give off a big money vibe.

Agree with this. Many alumni interviewers are doing interviews in lieu of giving $$$s.

a lot of us can't give six digits or more so are left doing alumni interviews. But the process keeps the alumni engaged and giving smaller amounts. That's why they do it.