Alumni Interviews - Lack of Consistency and Quality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did alumni interviews for my ivy for a few years. I felt like I had no impact and that the whole process was a waste of time. I stopped.

I certainly got no guidance on interviewing, making whatever we all learned completely unstandardized and random.

Same. And kids I praised to the heavens didn't get in, so what was the point?

+1

The last year I did it the only kid who got in was a total DB. This was after a 3-year dry spell of zero kids getting in so I decided it wasn't worth the effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Usually the interviews are more for the alumni than the students. Keeps the alumni a part of the school and donating.

yup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’re pointless. I quit doing them.

Ivy alum. Interviewed for 7 years circa age 26-33. Only one candidate got in and 1-2 more waitlisted. Everyone else rejected.

The interviews are boring. I got tired of hearing the same spiel over and over again. And I quickly figured out the only value of my feedback was when I clearly put down the kid was dull or if there was something off about him/her (I had one student who kept asking about how doable it was to graduate in three years instead of four).

For the parents complaining about the alum interviewers, keep in mind they have likely already interviewed many kids over the years and already know your kid has very little chance of being admitted. They probably also think it's a waste of time and do the interviews out of an obligation. And they also work! Sometimes things like traffic and deadlines at work get in the way of being on time.

[Anonymous]

It's just a way to catch red flags like if the interviewee is wildly inappropriate, or seems to not be who they claim to be.

99.9% of the time it's just a checked box. I suppose the .01% of the time the interviewer has some sway, but that isn't going to affect your kid.

[Anonymous]

^ Meant to add this approach benefits your child(ren), on account of the people it does filter out for egregious reasons. That's all. It's unreasonable to expect alumni interviewers to be ALL-IN or super knowledgeable. That's not what it's for. If anything, it's a routine event to teach the applicant that sometimes you have to do this stuff and play nice and be done with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did alumni interviews for my ivy for a few years. I felt like I had no impact and that the whole process was a waste of time. I stopped.

I certainly got no guidance on interviewing, making whatever we all learned completely unstandardized and random.

Same. And kids I praised to the heavens didn't get in, so what was the point?

+1

The last year I did it the only kid who got in was a total DB. This was after a 3-year dry spell of zero kids getting in so I decided it wasn't worth the effort.

And I only had 3 kids get in over a 10 year period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re pointless. I quit doing them.

Ivy alum. Interviewed for 7 years circa age 26-33. Only one candidate got in and 1-2 more waitlisted. Everyone else rejected.

The interviews are boring. I got tired of hearing the same spiel over and over again. And I quickly figured out the only value of my feedback was when I clearly put down the kid was dull or if there was something off about him/her (I had one student who kept asking about how doable it was to graduate in three years instead of four).

For the parents complaining about the alum interviewers, keep in mind they have likely already interviewed many kids over the years and already know your kid has very little chance of being admitted. They probably also think it's a waste of time and do the interviews out of an obligation. And they also work! Sometimes things like traffic and deadlines at work get in the way of being on time.

You thought that was off? That seems ambitious, or thrifty, or the question or a kid who took a lot of advanced classes and genuinely wanted to get ahead. Did they ask repeatedly because they didn't get a clear answer or thought they weren't being heard? Or because they didn't understand the system like a legacy kid or non-first-gen kid would? That's a shame you marked them down for that, in any case. I'm a college professor and I would never think of that as a negative question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re pointless. I quit doing them.

Ivy alum. Interviewed for 7 years circa age 26-33. Only one candidate got in and 1-2 more waitlisted. Everyone else rejected.

The interviews are boring. I got tired of hearing the same spiel over and over again. And I quickly figured out the only value of my feedback was when I clearly put down the kid was dull or if there was something off about him/her (I had one student who kept asking about how doable it was to graduate in three years instead of four).

For the parents complaining about the alum interviewers, keep in mind they have likely already interviewed many kids over the years and already know your kid has very little chance of being admitted. They probably also think it's a waste of time and do the interviews out of an obligation. And they also work! Sometimes things like traffic and deadlines at work get in the way of being on time.

These are the kind of alumni who should not be interviewing. If you aren't excited about the opportunity to learn about what's happening on campus now and sharing that information to applicants, then don't do it. I get a charge out of meeting all this smart, interesting kids. My college is quite clear that our primary purpose is to be an ambassador for the school and to put a high touch/human dimension to the application process. We are purposefully not given any of the application materials (scores, grades, recs, essays) because our role is not to be an admissions officer. If you can't be a cheerleader for the kids and your alma mater, then don't be part of the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did alumni interviews for my ivy for a few years. I felt like I had no impact and that the whole process was a waste of time. I stopped.

I certainly got no guidance on interviewing, making whatever we all learned completely unstandardized and random.

Me too. And for several years before I stopped completely, I wouldn't do interviews with kids at private schools because they were uniformly self entitled and overly polished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re pointless. I quit doing them.

Ivy alum. Interviewed for 7 years circa age 26-33. Only one candidate got in and 1-2 more waitlisted. Everyone else rejected.

The interviews are boring. I got tired of hearing the same spiel over and over again. And I quickly figured out the only value of my feedback was when I clearly put down the kid was dull or if there was something off about him/her (I had one student who kept asking about how doable it was to graduate in three years instead of four).

For the parents complaining about the alum interviewers, keep in mind they have likely already interviewed many kids over the years and already know your kid has very little chance of being admitted. They probably also think it's a waste of time and do the interviews out of an obligation. And they also work! Sometimes things like traffic and deadlines at work get in the way of being on time.

You thought that was off? That seems ambitious, or thrifty, or the question or a kid who took a lot of advanced classes and genuinely wanted to get ahead. Did they ask repeatedly because they didn't get a clear answer or thought they weren't being heard? Or because they didn't understand the system like a legacy kid or non-first-gen kid would? That's a shame you marked them down for that, in any case. I'm a college professor and I would never think of that as a negative question.

The kid kept talking about wanting to graduate in three years because he wanted to join his family business as soon as possible. He was a well off kid. It was apparent he was more interested in the school for the prestige value of the degree, seeing it as a route to something else rather than an end goal in itself and certainly not the educational experience. When you talk about graduating in three years it means you are not valuing the experience and education of the four year diploma. The Ivies and other top colleges are experiences, not just degrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re pointless. I quit doing them.

Ivy alum. Interviewed for 7 years circa age 26-33. Only one candidate got in and 1-2 more waitlisted. Everyone else rejected.

The interviews are boring. I got tired of hearing the same spiel over and over again. And I quickly figured out the only value of my feedback was when I clearly put down the kid was dull or if there was something off about him/her (I had one student who kept asking about how doable it was to graduate in three years instead of four).

For the parents complaining about the alum interviewers, keep in mind they have likely already interviewed many kids over the years and already know your kid has very little chance of being admitted. They probably also think it's a waste of time and do the interviews out of an obligation. And they also work! Sometimes things like traffic and deadlines at work get in the way of being on time.

You thought that was off? That seems ambitious, or thrifty, or the question or a kid who took a lot of advanced classes and genuinely wanted to get ahead. Did they ask repeatedly because they didn't get a clear answer or thought they weren't being heard? Or because they didn't understand the system like a legacy kid or non-first-gen kid would? That's a shame you marked them down for that, in any case. I'm a college professor and I would never think of that as a negative question.

Repeatedly asking is admittedly weird but the question is completely valid (if misdirected at an alum, who isn’t likely hip to the latest graduation requirements). Mine knew he wanted to compress for financial reasons and getting that answer was important and often hard to secure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re pointless. I quit doing them.

Ivy alum. Interviewed for 7 years circa age 26-33. Only one candidate got in and 1-2 more waitlisted. Everyone else rejected.

The interviews are boring. I got tired of hearing the same spiel over and over again. And I quickly figured out the only value of my feedback was when I clearly put down the kid was dull or if there was something off about him/her (I had one student who kept asking about how doable it was to graduate in three years instead of four).

For the parents complaining about the alum interviewers, keep in mind they have likely already interviewed many kids over the years and already know your kid has very little chance of being admitted. They probably also think it's a waste of time and do the interviews out of an obligation. And they also work! Sometimes things like traffic and deadlines at work get in the way of being on time.

These are the kind of alumni who should not be interviewing. If you aren't excited about the opportunity to learn about what's happening on campus now and sharing that information to applicants, then don't do it. I get a charge out of meeting all this smart, interesting kids. My college is quite clear that our primary purpose is to be an ambassador for the school and to put a high touch/human dimension to the application process. We are purposefully not given any of the application materials (scores, grades, recs, essays) because our role is not to be an admissions officer. If you can't be a cheerleader for the kids and your alma mater, then don't be part of the process.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You start out thinking that in your first year of interviews and maybe the second year. Then you realize most kids are more dull than not, more similar than not, have no real clue what's going to happen in college, and there's a staggering amount of overconfidence and egoism among high performing kids (comes with the territory, no?) that gets tiring after a while.

Been there, done that, no longer cares about the alma mater either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t believe they matter.

Some schools take what they report back quite significantly.

[Anonymous]

This seems like a colossal waste of time.

[Anonymous]

How can someone over the age of 40 comment or be an ambassador to a school they attended over 20 years ago????