Anonymous
11/19/2019 23:10
Subject: Alumni Interviews - Lack of Consistency and Quality
I have done alumni interviewing for HYP. The interviews DO matter, on the margins. We were given detailed written guidance and had to attend an in-person training, and were asked to write detailed reports after each interview. A horrible or amazing interview can hurt or help. ("This kid comes across as a conceited, self-righteous prig" = this kid probably won't be accepted, regardless of application's other strengths. "This kid absolutely shines - utterly delightful... the most thought-provoking conversation I have ever had with a teen..." = a strong tip towards acceptance.)
The interviewer's job is to look for and comment on the things that do not come through in the paper file, not to be an expert on current student life.
The interviewer's job is to look for and comment on the things that do not come through in the paper file, not to be an expert on current student life.
Anonymous
11/19/2019 19:46
Subject: Alumni Interviews - Lack of Consistency and Quality
the purpose of interviews is more informative than actually part of the admissions process. A lot of highly selective universities do interviews with alumni as a way to keep their alumni connected and to increase the possibility of donations from their graduates.
Anonymous
11/14/2019 23:49
Subject: Alumni Interviews - Lack of Consistency and Quality
Anonymous wrote:They count at Georgetown, where interviews are required and the reports are taken seriously.
Hopefully you won't get one of the numbskulls from my class. Good luck.
Anonymous
11/14/2019 22:29
Subject: Alumni Interviews - Lack of Consistency and Quality
They count at Georgetown, where interviews are required and the reports are taken seriously.
Anonymous
11/13/2019 23:10
Subject: Alumni Interviews - Lack of Consistency and Quality
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Yeah. Makes total sense. Let’s never question the establishment. That’s led to great things. Thank you Mr. Republican.
You are really irrational. Not a Republican and not a man. But please continue in your full on rage against alumni. You do realize that without interviews it might be significantly harder for Big 3 kids to get in... no APs, no awards and unless they do travel low level sports except maybe crew, Ice Hockey and squash. It seems like your anger is misplaced. I am sorry senior year has not gone as planned. It’s very tough.
You have no business interviewing MINORS. Just because you graudated from a top school doesnt make you qualified. Self justification is embarrassing.
Qualified? To do what? Interview 17-18 year old kids at Starbucks to tick off a box? What exactly are you afraid of?
The poster is afraid that a person will be harshly or negatively judge his/her child, in a way that is not consistent with most interviewer's standards, resulting in a negative impact to the child's application.
Seeing as interviewers are posting statements on this forum that they are on the look out for "disastrous" candidates so that they can give the admissions committee a warning, that would seem to be a legitimate fear.
What if the kid is disturbing? Hmm. Some are.
What if the interviewer is disturbing? Hmm. Some are.
Then call the admissions office and complain. They'll take the claim seriously.
Just self report. No where, at no ivy, is the alumni interview described as a vehicle for interviewers to find and flag children they see as disturbing. If you see this as the mission, you should turn yourself in and stop doing alumni interviews.
There just isnt any pleasing you. First, we tell you that the interview doesnt make a difference for most applicants, because the interview just reinforces the rest of the application. In a small percentage of cases, however, the interview doesnt reinforce the application, so it raises a flag. Then you claim that this very basic screening of kids who can't keep an appointment isnt appropriate, because interviewers are apparently unqualified to know whether the kid is indeed sitting across from them in the Starbucks.
There are so many applicants in this area that most Ivy League schools have trouble recruiting enough interviewers. The schools aren't too concerned about your evaluation of our qualifications.
Your qualifications don't matter much and neither does your interview. Meet the kids and send in the evaluation. Keep it positive and don't report any negativity. Simple.
Why don’t you do the interviews yourself! You can mail mom interviews to admissions and see how simple it is. Do note if you act in real life like you did on this thread no one will want your kid because “the mother is a nightmare”... it’s probably in all recs. Schools often have the last laugh.
Anonymous
11/13/2019 21:48
Subject: Alumni Interviews - Lack of Consistency and Quality
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Yeah. Makes total sense. Let’s never question the establishment. That’s led to great things. Thank you Mr. Republican.
You are really irrational. Not a Republican and not a man. But please continue in your full on rage against alumni. You do realize that without interviews it might be significantly harder for Big 3 kids to get in... no APs, no awards and unless they do travel low level sports except maybe crew, Ice Hockey and squash. It seems like your anger is misplaced. I am sorry senior year has not gone as planned. It’s very tough.
You have no business interviewing MINORS. Just because you graudated from a top school doesnt make you qualified. Self justification is embarrassing.
Qualified? To do what? Interview 17-18 year old kids at Starbucks to tick off a box? What exactly are you afraid of?
The poster is afraid that a person will be harshly or negatively judge his/her child, in a way that is not consistent with most interviewer's standards, resulting in a negative impact to the child's application.
Seeing as interviewers are posting statements on this forum that they are on the look out for "disastrous" candidates so that they can give the admissions committee a warning, that would seem to be a legitimate fear.
What if the kid is disturbing? Hmm. Some are.
What if the interviewer is disturbing? Hmm. Some are.
Then call the admissions office and complain. They'll take the claim seriously.
Just self report. No where, at no ivy, is the alumni interview described as a vehicle for interviewers to find and flag children they see as disturbing. If you see this as the mission, you should turn yourself in and stop doing alumni interviews.
There just isnt any pleasing you. First, we tell you that the interview doesnt make a difference for most applicants, because the interview just reinforces the rest of the application. In a small percentage of cases, however, the interview doesnt reinforce the application, so it raises a flag. Then you claim that this very basic screening of kids who can't keep an appointment isnt appropriate, because interviewers are apparently unqualified to know whether the kid is indeed sitting across from them in the Starbucks.
There are so many applicants in this area that most Ivy League schools have trouble recruiting enough interviewers. The schools aren't too concerned about your evaluation of our qualifications.
Your qualifications don't matter much and neither does your interview. Meet the kids and send in the evaluation. Keep it positive and don't report any negativity. Simple.