Ivy Alumni Interview

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally oversee interviews for Princeton. We are told in explicit instructions that alums are ambassadors for the school and that we should not convey we have any say in admissions cuz we don’t. They may have once meant something—but they do not anymore. Your kid should do them to show interest but they should NOT stress about them because they are not going to determine whether they get in.

Lol totes credible. Cuz

I have interviewed for Harvard. These Ivy interviews exist only for the school to engage the alum in the hopes they will get more money. My kid had four of them. Didn't make a difference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale only interviews if in the running.

If you're in the top 2% (athlete or donor etc) , they don't.

If you're in the bottom 80% (not really a possible admit), they don't.

so it's a good sign

This isn’t true. I’m an alumni interviewer for Yale and have interviewed kids with likely letters for sports. It is true that they don’t interview everyone, but I have no reason to think they don’t interview the very excellent students.

I find this hard to believe. I interview for another Ivy and was once assigned a committed athlete. I thought that was strange, and sure enough I received an email from admissions telling me it was a mistake…but if I wanted to talk to the athlete I could answer their questions but shouldn’t ask the athlete any questions because I could ask something violates NCAA guidelines (which they did not expect me to be familiar).

I reached out and asked if the kid if he wanted to talk…as expected he said no thanks.

I don’t know why there are posters that are hell bent on saying alumni interviews are meaningless…they literally are for some Ivy schools now…but for others like Harvard, Yale and Princeton (at least)…they do mean something on the margins.

I would be shocked to see if any kids are accepted with terrible alumni interview reports…which of course doesn’t change that most with tremendous interview reports are also rejected.

The thing is the people in this thread are semi-nobodies. Despite graduating Ivy, they are nobodies in the grand scheme of these schools. So they are assigned nobodies who will never get it.

Do you think Malia Obama was interviewed by User 12.17 on DCUM? No, and others like her will be assigned the high ranking alumni who actually do have some kind of influence.

This is why they are saying they have been interviewing kids for 10 years but none get in. It's a false fallacy. i.e. Because noone I interviewed got in, this means the interviews don't matter.

There is some rich and successful interviewer out there who knly conducts 4 interviews and 75% get in every year.

On this issue, their point of view is determined by their status in society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale only interviews if in the running.

If you're in the top 2% (athlete or donor etc) , they don't.

If you're in the bottom 80% (not really a possible admit), they don't.

so it's a good sign

This isn’t true. I’m an alumni interviewer for Yale and have interviewed kids with likely letters for sports. It is true that they don’t interview everyone, but I have no reason to think they don’t interview the very excellent students.

I find this hard to believe. I interview for another Ivy and was once assigned a committed athlete. I thought that was strange, and sure enough I received an email from admissions telling me it was a mistake…but if I wanted to talk to the athlete I could answer their questions but shouldn’t ask the athlete any questions because I could ask something violates NCAA guidelines (which they did not expect me to be familiar).

I reached out and asked if the kid if he wanted to talk…as expected he said no thanks.

I don’t know why there are posters that are hell bent on saying alumni interviews are meaningless…they literally are for some Ivy schools now…but for others like Harvard, Yale and Princeton (at least)…they do mean something on the margins.

I would be shocked to see if any kids are accepted with terrible alumni interview reports…which of course doesn’t change that most with tremendous interview reports are also rejected.

The thing is the people in this thread are semi-nobodies. Despite graduating Ivy, they are nobodies in the grand scheme of these schools. So they are assigned nobodies who will never get it.

Do you think Malia Obama was interviewed by User 12.17 on DCUM? No, and others like her will be assigned the high ranking alumni who actually do have some kind of influence.

This is why they are saying they have been interviewing kids for 10 years but none get in. It's a false fallacy. i.e. Because noone I interviewed got in, this means the interviews don't matter.

There is some rich and successful interviewer out there who knly conducts 4 interviews and 75% get in every year.

On this issue, their point of view is determined by their status in society.

NP: those famous kids are not getting in BC of the interview, so again, the interviews are largely meaningless.

The one exception I know was an ivy interview and then an (same) ivy rotc interview. I knew when the rotc one came, the kid was in.

[Anonymous]

How are you rating applicants?

[Anonymous]

Good luck OP to your DC and your family. Fingers crossed for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton

My kid was WL. He had a good interview. He did not apply early and I sometimes wonder if he would have been accepted if he had.

The only reason he didn’t apply early was because HS counselor basically said nobody from the high school (other than athletic recruits) ever gets accepted. Felt it was a throwaway early.

So frustrating!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve interviewed dozens of kids for Princeton over the years. None have been accepted.

Do you have any tips for what makes a successful interview?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale only interviews if in the running.

If you're in the top 2% (athlete or donor etc) , they don't.

If you're in the bottom 80% (not really a possible admit), they don't.

so it's a good sign

This isn’t true. I’m an alumni interviewer for Yale and have interviewed kids with likely letters for sports. It is true that they don’t interview everyone, but I have no reason to think they don’t interview the very excellent students.

I find this hard to believe. I interview for another Ivy and was once assigned a committed athlete. I thought that was strange, and sure enough I received an email from admissions telling me it was a mistake…but if I wanted to talk to the athlete I could answer their questions but shouldn’t ask the athlete any questions because I could ask something violates NCAA guidelines (which they did not expect me to be familiar).

I reached out and asked if the kid if he wanted to talk…as expected he said no thanks.

I don’t know why there are posters that are hell bent on saying alumni interviews are meaningless…they literally are for some Ivy schools now…but for others like Harvard, Yale and Princeton (at least)…they do mean something on the margins.

I would be shocked to see if any kids are accepted with terrible alumni interview reports…which of course doesn’t change that most with tremendous interview reports are also rejected.

The thing is the people in this thread are semi-nobodies. Despite graduating Ivy, they are nobodies in the grand scheme of these schools. So they are assigned nobodies who will never get it.

Do you think Malia Obama was interviewed by User 12.17 on DCUM? No, and others like her will be assigned the high ranking alumni who actually do have some kind of influence.

This is why they are saying they have been interviewing kids for 10 years but none get in. It's a false fallacy. i.e. Because noone I interviewed got in, this means the interviews don't matter.

There is some rich and successful interviewer out there who knly conducts 4 interviews and 75% get in every year.

On this issue, their point of view is determined by their status in society.

NP: those famous kids are not getting in BC of the interview, so again, the interviews are largely meaningless.

The one exception I know was an ivy interview and then an (same) ivy rotc interview. I knew when the rotc one came, the kid was in.

Clearly Malia was just an example.

The point being the kids HYP want aren't going to be sent your way to interview. They will be interviewed by alumni of similar fabric.

Also, some high profile kids can get rejected because of interviews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale only interviews if in the running.

If you're in the top 2% (athlete or donor etc) , they don't.

If you're in the bottom 80% (not really a possible admit), they don't.

so it's a good sign

This isn’t true. I’m an alumni interviewer for Yale and have interviewed kids with likely letters for sports. It is true that they don’t interview everyone, but I have no reason to think they don’t interview the very excellent students.

I find this hard to believe. I interview for another Ivy and was once assigned a committed athlete. I thought that was strange, and sure enough I received an email from admissions telling me it was a mistake…but if I wanted to talk to the athlete I could answer their questions but shouldn’t ask the athlete any questions because I could ask something violates NCAA guidelines (which they did not expect me to be familiar).

I reached out and asked if the kid if he wanted to talk…as expected he said no thanks.

I don’t know why there are posters that are hell bent on saying alumni interviews are meaningless…they literally are for some Ivy schools now…but for others like Harvard, Yale and Princeton (at least)…they do mean something on the margins.

I would be shocked to see if any kids are accepted with terrible alumni interview reports…which of course doesn’t change that most with tremendous interview reports are also rejected.

The thing is the people in this thread are semi-nobodies. Despite graduating Ivy, they are nobodies in the grand scheme of these schools. So they are assigned nobodies who will never get it.

Do you think Malia Obama was interviewed by User 12.17 on DCUM? No, and others like her will be assigned the high ranking alumni who actually do have some kind of influence.

This is why they are saying they have been interviewing kids for 10 years but none get in. It's a false fallacy. i.e. Because noone I interviewed got in, this means the interviews don't matter.

There is some rich and successful interviewer out there who knly conducts 4 interviews and 75% get in every year.

On this issue, their point of view is determined by their status in society.

NP: those famous kids are not getting in BC of the interview, so again, the interviews are largely meaningless.

The one exception I know was an ivy interview and then an (same) ivy rotc interview. I knew when the rotc one came, the kid was in.

Sometimes interviews do matter for the famous kids.

If there are 5 famous kids at the same school, interviews can be used to eliminate a few.

I don't know about Harvard or Yale but I know Columbia does this for NYC privates where half the class comes from an elite background.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale only interviews if in the running.

If you're in the top 2% (athlete or donor etc) , they don't.

If you're in the bottom 80% (not really a possible admit), they don't.

so it's a good sign

This isn’t true. I’m an alumni interviewer for Yale and have interviewed kids with likely letters for sports. It is true that they don’t interview everyone, but I have no reason to think they don’t interview the very excellent students.

I find this hard to believe. I interview for another Ivy and was once assigned a committed athlete. I thought that was strange, and sure enough I received an email from admissions telling me it was a mistake…but if I wanted to talk to the athlete I could answer their questions but shouldn’t ask the athlete any questions because I could ask something violates NCAA guidelines (which they did not expect me to be familiar).

I reached out and asked if the kid if he wanted to talk…as expected he said no thanks.

I don’t know why there are posters that are hell bent on saying alumni interviews are meaningless…they literally are for some Ivy schools now…but for others like Harvard, Yale and Princeton (at least)…they do mean something on the margins.

I would be shocked to see if any kids are accepted with terrible alumni interview reports…which of course doesn’t change that most with tremendous interview reports are also rejected.

The thing is the people in this thread are semi-nobodies. Despite graduating Ivy, they are nobodies in the grand scheme of these schools. So they are assigned nobodies who will never get it.

Do you think Malia Obama was interviewed by User 12.17 on DCUM? No, and others like her will be assigned the high ranking alumni who actually do have some kind of influence.

This is why they are saying they have been interviewing kids for 10 years but none get in. It's a false fallacy. i.e. Because noone I interviewed got in, this means the interviews don't matter.

There is some rich and successful interviewer out there who knly conducts 4 interviews and 75% get in every year.

On this issue, their point of view is determined by their status in society.

NP: those famous kids are not getting in BC of the interview, so again, the interviews are largely meaningless.

The one exception I know was an ivy interview and then an (same) ivy rotc interview. I knew when the rotc one came, the kid was in.

Sometimes interviews do matter for the famous kids.

If there are 5 famous kids at the same school, interviews can be used to eliminate a few.

I don't know about Harvard or Yale but I know Columbia does this for NYC privates where half the class comes from an elite background.

Uh, no. 5 famous kids aren’t being rejected.

[Anonymous]

☝🏼

*Cornell

Not Columbia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale only interviews if in the running.

If you're in the top 2% (athlete or donor etc) , they don't.

If you're in the bottom 80% (not really a possible admit), they don't.

so it's a good sign

This isn’t true. I’m an alumni interviewer for Yale and have interviewed kids with likely letters for sports. It is true that they don’t interview everyone, but I have no reason to think they don’t interview the very excellent students.

I find this hard to believe. I interview for another Ivy and was once assigned a committed athlete. I thought that was strange, and sure enough I received an email from admissions telling me it was a mistake…but if I wanted to talk to the athlete I could answer their questions but shouldn’t ask the athlete any questions because I could ask something violates NCAA guidelines (which they did not expect me to be familiar).

I reached out and asked if the kid if he wanted to talk…as expected he said no thanks.

I don’t know why there are posters that are hell bent on saying alumni interviews are meaningless…they literally are for some Ivy schools now…but for others like Harvard, Yale and Princeton (at least)…they do mean something on the margins.

I would be shocked to see if any kids are accepted with terrible alumni interview reports…which of course doesn’t change that most with tremendous interview reports are also rejected.

The thing is the people in this thread are semi-nobodies. Despite graduating Ivy, they are nobodies in the grand scheme of these schools. So they are assigned nobodies who will never get it.

Do you think Malia Obama was interviewed by User 12.17 on DCUM? No, and others like her will be assigned the high ranking alumni who actually do have some kind of influence.

This is why they are saying they have been interviewing kids for 10 years but none get in. It's a false fallacy. i.e. Because noone I interviewed got in, this means the interviews don't matter.

There is some rich and successful interviewer out there who knly conducts 4 interviews and 75% get in every year.

On this issue, their point of view is determined by their status in society.

NP: those famous kids are not getting in BC of the interview, so again, the interviews are largely meaningless.

The one exception I know was an ivy interview and then an (same) ivy rotc interview. I knew when the rotc one came, the kid was in.

Sometimes interviews do matter for the famous kids.

If there are 5 famous kids at the same school, interviews can be used to eliminate a few.

I don't know about Harvard or Yale but I know Columbia does this for NYC privates where half the class comes from an elite background.

Uh, no. 5 famous kids aren’t being rejected.

Former Dalton

Elite kids get rejected and end up at other schools.

NYC is not like DC. There is major money, major elitism and major power there.

The whole class can't be admitted into 8 ivies + Stanford. It's impossible.

Some get rejections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale only interviews if in the running.

If you're in the top 2% (athlete or donor etc) , they don't.

If you're in the bottom 80% (not really a possible admit), they don't.

so it's a good sign

This isn’t true. I’m an alumni interviewer for Yale and have interviewed kids with likely letters for sports. It is true that they don’t interview everyone, but I have no reason to think they don’t interview the very excellent students.

I find this hard to believe. I interview for another Ivy and was once assigned a committed athlete. I thought that was strange, and sure enough I received an email from admissions telling me it was a mistake…but if I wanted to talk to the athlete I could answer their questions but shouldn’t ask the athlete any questions because I could ask something violates NCAA guidelines (which they did not expect me to be familiar).

I reached out and asked if the kid if he wanted to talk…as expected he said no thanks.

I don’t know why there are posters that are hell bent on saying alumni interviews are meaningless…they literally are for some Ivy schools now…but for others like Harvard, Yale and Princeton (at least)…they do mean something on the margins.

I would be shocked to see if any kids are accepted with terrible alumni interview reports…which of course doesn’t change that most with tremendous interview reports are also rejected.

The thing is the people in this thread are semi-nobodies. Despite graduating Ivy, they are nobodies in the grand scheme of these schools. So they are assigned nobodies who will never get it.

Do you think Malia Obama was interviewed by User 12.17 on DCUM? No, and others like her will be assigned the high ranking alumni who actually do have some kind of influence.

This is why they are saying they have been interviewing kids for 10 years but none get in. It's a false fallacy. i.e. Because noone I interviewed got in, this means the interviews don't matter.

There is some rich and successful interviewer out there who knly conducts 4 interviews and 75% get in every year.

On this issue, their point of view is determined by their status in society.

NP: those famous kids are not getting in BC of the interview, so again, the interviews are largely meaningless.

The one exception I know was an ivy interview and then an (same) ivy rotc interview. I knew when the rotc one came, the kid was in.

Sometimes interviews do matter for the famous kids.

If there are 5 famous kids at the same school, interviews can be used to eliminate a few.

I don't know about Harvard or Yale but I know Columbia does this for NYC privates where half the class comes from an elite background.

Uh, no. 5 famous kids aren’t being rejected.

Former Dalton

Elite kids get rejected and end up at other schools.

NYC is not like DC. There is major money, major elitism and major power there.

The whole class can't be admitted into 8 ivies + Stanford. It's impossible.

Some get rejections.

This is not answering about a whole class or about exclusive privates. It is about famous kids. A Seinfeld and an Obama are both admitted to where they apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale only interviews if in the running.

If you're in the top 2% (athlete or donor etc) , they don't.

If you're in the bottom 80% (not really a possible admit), they don't.

so it's a good sign

This isn’t true. I’m an alumni interviewer for Yale and have interviewed kids with likely letters for sports. It is true that they don’t interview everyone, but I have no reason to think they don’t interview the very excellent students.

I find this hard to believe. I interview for another Ivy and was once assigned a committed athlete. I thought that was strange, and sure enough I received an email from admissions telling me it was a mistake…but if I wanted to talk to the athlete I could answer their questions but shouldn’t ask the athlete any questions because I could ask something violates NCAA guidelines (which they did not expect me to be familiar).

I reached out and asked if the kid if he wanted to talk…as expected he said no thanks.

I don’t know why there are posters that are hell bent on saying alumni interviews are meaningless…they literally are for some Ivy schools now…but for others like Harvard, Yale and Princeton (at least)…they do mean something on the margins.

I would be shocked to see if any kids are accepted with terrible alumni interview reports…which of course doesn’t change that most with tremendous interview reports are also rejected.

The thing is the people in this thread are semi-nobodies. Despite graduating Ivy, they are nobodies in the grand scheme of these schools. So they are assigned nobodies who will never get it.

Do you think Malia Obama was interviewed by User 12.17 on DCUM? No, and others like her will be assigned the high ranking alumni who actually do have some kind of influence.

This is why they are saying they have been interviewing kids for 10 years but none get in. It's a false fallacy. i.e. Because noone I interviewed got in, this means the interviews don't matter.

There is some rich and successful interviewer out there who knly conducts 4 interviews and 75% get in every year.

On this issue, their point of view is determined by their status in society.

NP: those famous kids are not getting in BC of the interview, so again, the interviews are largely meaningless.

The one exception I know was an ivy interview and then an (same) ivy rotc interview. I knew when the rotc one came, the kid was in.

Sometimes interviews do matter for the famous kids.

If there are 5 famous kids at the same school, interviews can be used to eliminate a few.

I don't know about Harvard or Yale but I know Columbia does this for NYC privates where half the class comes from an elite background.

Uh, no. 5 famous kids aren’t being rejected.

Former Dalton

Elite kids get rejected and end up at other schools.

NYC is not like DC. There is major money, major elitism and major power there.

The whole class can't be admitted into 8 ivies + Stanford. It's impossible.

Some get rejections.

This is not answering about a whole class or about exclusive privates. It is about famous kids. A Seinfeld and an Obama are both admitted to where they apply.

There are classes with 60% Seinfield types in the NYC top schools.
This is how I know you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale only interviews if in the running.

If you're in the top 2% (athlete or donor etc) , they don't.

If you're in the bottom 80% (not really a possible admit), they don't.

so it's a good sign

This isn’t true. I’m an alumni interviewer for Yale and have interviewed kids with likely letters for sports. It is true that they don’t interview everyone, but I have no reason to think they don’t interview the very excellent students.

I find this hard to believe. I interview for another Ivy and was once assigned a committed athlete. I thought that was strange, and sure enough I received an email from admissions telling me it was a mistake…but if I wanted to talk to the athlete I could answer their questions but shouldn’t ask the athlete any questions because I could ask something violates NCAA guidelines (which they did not expect me to be familiar).

I reached out and asked if the kid if he wanted to talk…as expected he said no thanks.

I don’t know why there are posters that are hell bent on saying alumni interviews are meaningless…they literally are for some Ivy schools now…but for others like Harvard, Yale and Princeton (at least)…they do mean something on the margins.

I would be shocked to see if any kids are accepted with terrible alumni interview reports…which of course doesn’t change that most with tremendous interview reports are also rejected.

The thing is the people in this thread are semi-nobodies. Despite graduating Ivy, they are nobodies in the grand scheme of these schools. So they are assigned nobodies who will never get it.

Do you think Malia Obama was interviewed by User 12.17 on DCUM? No, and others like her will be assigned the high ranking alumni who actually do have some kind of influence.

This is why they are saying they have been interviewing kids for 10 years but none get in. It's a false fallacy. i.e. Because noone I interviewed got in, this means the interviews don't matter.

There is some rich and successful interviewer out there who knly conducts 4 interviews and 75% get in every year.

On this issue, their point of view is determined by their status in society.

NP: those famous kids are not getting in BC of the interview, so again, the interviews are largely meaningless.

The one exception I know was an ivy interview and then an (same) ivy rotc interview. I knew when the rotc one came, the kid was in.

Sometimes interviews do matter for the famous kids.

If there are 5 famous kids at the same school, interviews can be used to eliminate a few.

I don't know about Harvard or Yale but I know Columbia does this for NYC privates where half the class comes from an elite background.

Uh, no. 5 famous kids aren’t being rejected.

Former Dalton

Elite kids get rejected and end up at other schools.

NYC is not like DC. There is major money, major elitism and major power there.

The whole class can't be admitted into 8 ivies + Stanford. It's impossible.

Some get rejections.

This is not answering about a whole class or about exclusive privates. It is about famous kids. A Seinfeld and an Obama are both admitted to where they apply.

There are classes with 60% Seinfield types in the NYC top schools.
This is how I know you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

There may be a large percentage of wealthy kid or kids from “famous” people, but I mean really famous people only. Otherwise, Lori L and Felicity H. Wouldn’t have had to buy their kids in. No, there are not classes with 60% of the kids of kids I am talking about.