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.

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.

Wellesley said they discontinued the interviews a couple years ago because the alumni don’t have the needed training. I’m assuming that’s implicit bias training.

Anonymous wrote:

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

This. My friend who does them said they never select he people he recommends.

I have been doing interviews for a highly-rejective Ivy around 10 years now...I am in the camp of doing the interview to help my own kids when they have to go through the college process so they understand the questions asked and what the college asks the interviewer to write about.

When I started doing the interviews, none of my interviewees were accepted, but now probably 20% of the kids I interview each year get accepted (it's still only 2 kids max). Perhaps they assign more realistic candidates to more experienced interviewers, or maybe my write-ups have gotten better. I don't know.

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.

Lack of any Golden Ticket program.

Each alumni interviewer should be allotted one Golden Ticket for admission per admissions cycle.

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.

I did it for two years; it was horrible. The kids who were clearly disinterested in the school were evident after the first question but you would still need to talk to them for 15 minutes. I had parents on a couple occasions follow up with me after the interview. I just didn't see the value in continuing.

I hope these end! Alumni are often out of sync with current institutional priorities, receive very little training (I dare say none) on how to evaluate candidates. It always felt so fickle to me.

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

This. My friend who does them said they never select he people he recommends.

Georgetown still requires interviews.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it also because they don't have the bandwidth to interview everyone so its not equitable if everyone doesn't have the opportunity?

Yes- signed former non-white Ivy interviewer

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.

Yeah I assumed it was just another fundraising technique

But it’s a fair trade for me, I’m learning about admissions and what kind of kids get into my Alma mater and what they did to do that, and it will benefit my kids.

100 percent.

I was an alumni interviewer for a school that is not Harvard. When my son was in eighth grade, I interviewed a young woman who was incredible. She brought me a copy of her resume, which I saved and referenced many times over the years. It's how I learned about things like the PVSA, Congressional Award, Senate Page Program, etc. -- all things that my kid pursued. (The applicant ended up withdrawing her application because she got in early to Harvard.)

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

+ incredibly inefficient process. Even in job settings, most interviews turn into “gut feeling” personality litmus tests and are terrible predictors of job performance.

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.

Yeah I assumed it was just another fundraising technique

But it’s a fair trade for me, I’m learning about admissions and what kind of kids get into my Alma mater and what they did to do that, and it will benefit my kids.

too many applicants, not enough alumni interviewers. We used to give every applicant an interview, and now the main admissions picks out which ones make the cut to get an interview.