Anonymous wrote:Our school also changed our schools profile that they submit with college apps. Why? Too get a kid into MIT. What did she do in exchange? Rig a club election for the teacher. This teacher also got other teachers to get this kid awards in her junior year. The kids had never got an academic award in her life! (Her mom had cancer at the time, so that was probably the reason used.) The kid is at MIT. Not making a name for herself at all. Internships only got due to family connections. Very unimpressive so far.

What did they change?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I interview for Princeton. Twice caught highly qualified applicants in what I believe were falsehoods — explained in detail why in my report. One asserted something about their EC that was off (I happened to know something about the recognition described); the other asserted something about their enthusiasm for the school that did not add up. My spouse interviews for another highly selective school and came home one day grey, for he suspected the candidate had made up an entire financial and family situation. In all three cases we carefully explained our reasoning in our reports. The candidates were not admitted. Perhaps they would not have been admitted regardless, but the suspicion they generated didn’t help their cause.

Well, you suck if you had no absolute proof. You reported someone bc his enthusiasm for the school didn’t add up? This goes for the idiot interviewer who thought an applicant should have been forced to disclose his tax return.

+1! And thanks, I am glad I am not the only person who thought those posters were…. (Forbidden word)

Well now we know some of the cheater mommies and daddies hanging around DCUM.

I spent a lot of time thinking through what happened and also discussed both situations with our association. I cannot go into specifics, but in both cases the individuals made a very specific assertion as to their accomplishments. I simply reported the assertion in the report and the reason the assertion did not add up to me. It is up to the reader of the report to judge.

I did not do this lightly. I generally see my job is to help applicants illustrate sides of themselves that can help their candidacy.

Your words were that his enthusiasm for the school didn’t add up. That sounds like you approached this lightly. And, has anyone ever said this is part of your job? Your job is more in name only as an interviewer in everyone’s eyes but your own.

Sorry you feel the need to attack me so personally. I had wanted to participate in forums like these because they had been so helpful to me in the past, and I had wanted to pay it forward. But your nastiness has convinced me not to bother.

I don’t see myself as nasty at all. And how did I attack you
personally? You don’t like the light shining on your words…that poor kid…

DP. Here's the problem. You want to make yourself an equal arbiter to a situation about which you know very little. All you have (by your own admission) are words. What you are missing is that PP didn't disclose a detailed account (abd didn't claim to), so you really have no means to judge her. "Shine" the "light" as much as you like, but you won't see anything more because it simply wasn't shared. PP shared some limited info, she is not on trial, even though you want her to be. I appreciated the insight that interviewers are paying attention.

Also, it looks like you are stuffing the thread with your posts. Find a more productive hobby?

Our school also changed our schools profile that they submit with college apps. Why? Too get a kid into MIT. What did she do in exchange? Rig a club election for the teacher. This teacher also got other teachers to get this kid awards in her junior year. The kids had never got an academic award in her life! (Her mom had cancer at the time, so that was probably the reason used.) The kid is at MIT. Not making a name for herself at all. Internships only got due to family connections. Very unimpressive so far.

I only read the first page of comments but wanted to add what I’ve seen….

My DD started a pandemic project to help our community. She got awards for it. The teacher involved used my DD’s project to get a kid in the following year’s class an award. See everyone believes recommendations — they think teachers never lie. This teacher is on a trip to prove she can get kids into elite schools. The kid who got the award is at CMU. The rest of the kids in that club gave themselves positions — even though they could not (did not know how to!) continue my DD’s project after she graduated. This was because of the same teacher. But guess what? We have seen on LinkedIn that these kids who had put in 20-30 hours exaggerated their hours — I have seen 250 hours which is more than what my DD put down on her college apps. Kids who should have got into elite schools that my DD applied to were ALL denied. One is at Georgetown after being put on a waitlist and then being nominated for an award (that she did not win) in exchange for doing something for the teacher over the summer — this last bit was then said to have been done by a kid in the next year’s class. The rest are at our state flagship.

Teachers are awesome in general and I’m very grateful to the good ones, but please realize that there are schools/teachers that encourage their students to lie so that they can be admitted to elite schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I interview for Princeton. Twice caught highly qualified applicants in what I believe were falsehoods — explained in detail why in my report. One asserted something about their EC that was off (I happened to know something about the recognition described); the other asserted something about their enthusiasm for the school that did not add up. My spouse interviews for another highly selective school and came home one day grey, for he suspected the candidate had made up an entire financial and family situation. In all three cases we carefully explained our reasoning in our reports. The candidates were not admitted. Perhaps they would not have been admitted regardless, but the suspicion they generated didn’t help their cause.

Wow, you were suspicious but you also did not know this was false.

Suspected, believed…that’s it…and she and her husband are possibly changing the trajectory of the poor kids who get them as interviewees.

Anonymous wrote:I interview for Princeton. Twice caught highly qualified applicants in what I believe were falsehoods — explained in detail why in my report. One asserted something about their EC that was off (I happened to know something about the recognition described); the other asserted something about their enthusiasm for the school that did not add up. My spouse interviews for another highly selective school and came home one day grey, for he suspected the candidate had made up an entire financial and family situation. In all three cases we carefully explained our reasoning in our reports. The candidates were not admitted. Perhaps they would not have been admitted regardless, but the suspicion they generated didn’t help their cause.

Wow, you were suspicious but you also did not know this was false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cool thing about Iowa and Iowa State is that not only do they not waste their time verifying application claims that don't really matter, but they publish a GPA/SAT/ACT matrix that you can use to calculate with 100% certainty whether you'll get in. It's all based on numbers, as it should be.

That's fine for low-end schools offering basic credentials.

“Basic credentials”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I interview for Princeton. Twice caught highly qualified applicants in what I believe were falsehoods — explained in detail why in my report. One asserted something about their EC that was off (I happened to know something about the recognition described); the other asserted something about their enthusiasm for the school that did not add up. My spouse interviews for another highly selective school and came home one day grey, for he suspected the candidate had made up an entire financial and family situation. In all three cases we carefully explained our reasoning in our reports. The candidates were not admitted. Perhaps they would not have been admitted regardless, but the suspicion they generated didn’t help their cause.

Well, you suck if you had no absolute proof. You reported someone bc his enthusiasm for the school didn’t add up? This goes for the idiot interviewer who thought an applicant should have been forced to disclose his tax return.

If you want to see how the alumni interview can absolutely determine admissions outcome at Ivy (even when they outwardly May say it’s not determinative), read this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/s/EFQhffUjhR

Stanford Alumni Magazine March 2024
https://stanfordmag.org/contents/admit-one

Wow - both links support this view on the signficance of alumni interviews.
Its a clear edge to these well-spoken impactful kids who make an impression. Note to self: start kids in interview prep freshman year.....

This shows that the interview can only help…interviews should not be used to keep kids out. the wife and husband above are terrible for doing everything in their power keep kids out based on intuitions. That should be incredibly rare, for things like racist comments…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I interview for Princeton. Twice caught highly qualified applicants in what I believe were falsehoods — explained in detail why in my report. One asserted something about their EC that was off (I happened to know something about the recognition described); the other asserted something about their enthusiasm for the school that did not add up. My spouse interviews for another highly selective school and came home one day grey, for he suspected the candidate had made up an entire financial and family situation. In all three cases we carefully explained our reasoning in our reports. The candidates were not admitted. Perhaps they would not have been admitted regardless, but the suspicion they generated didn’t help their cause.

Well, you suck if you had no absolute proof. You reported someone bc his enthusiasm for the school didn’t add up? This goes for the idiot interviewer who thought an applicant should have been forced to disclose his tax return.

If you want to see how the alumni interview can absolutely determine admissions outcome at Ivy (even when they outwardly May say it’s not determinative), read this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/s/EFQhffUjhR

BS. Even he says difference “seemed to be”. Plus you only see this data for those that got in. Not saying it can’t make a difference, but almost never does, because few kids are actually “on the fence” of the 40,000 that apply.

So no, superman screwing a kid for fun superhero is a pathetic zero who should be ashamed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I interview for Princeton. Twice caught highly qualified applicants in what I believe were falsehoods — explained in detail why in my report. One asserted something about their EC that was off (I happened to know something about the recognition described); the other asserted something about their enthusiasm for the school that did not add up. My spouse interviews for another highly selective school and came home one day grey, for he suspected the candidate had made up an entire financial and family situation. In all three cases we carefully explained our reasoning in our reports. The candidates were not admitted. Perhaps they would not have been admitted regardless, but the suspicion they generated didn’t help their cause.

Well, you suck if you had no absolute proof. You reported someone bc his enthusiasm for the school didn’t add up? This goes for the idiot interviewer who thought an applicant should have been forced to disclose his tax return.

If you want to see how the alumni interview can absolutely determine admissions outcome at Ivy (even when they outwardly May say it’s not determinative), read this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/s/EFQhffUjhR

Stanford Alumni Magazine March 2024
https://stanfordmag.org/contents/admit-one

Wow - both links support this view on the signficance of alumni interviews.
Its a clear edge to these well-spoken impactful kids who make an impression. Note to self: start kids in interview prep freshman year.....

Christ--even more kids lie about their race.

This is why I'm all for gpas and test required. Done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, what's the difference between stretching the truth on ECs and submitting a test score which represents hours of undisclosed one on one tutoring, multiple retakes and extra time in a quiet room?

In one example you put the work into it (testing prep), and in the other example you pretend you did something you didn’t.

Writing down ECs you never did or greatly exaggerating is akin to having someone else take the test for you. You know, cheating.

Studying for hours to take a test(s) that everyone can take multiple times is the same as putting in the work in a time intensive ECs that build upon each other and then writing down the highest level attained(without exaggerating).

Ah the privilege!

It costs about 40 dollars and is also offered multiple times at public school. That is less than most lower income people spend on cable or Starbucks for a few drinks per month. And yea you can study for years if you want to with the free resources online. Ah!!

Wow, really doubling down on the privilege.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I interview for Princeton. Twice caught highly qualified applicants in what I believe were falsehoods — explained in detail why in my report. One asserted something about their EC that was off (I happened to know something about the recognition described); the other asserted something about their enthusiasm for the school that did not add up. My spouse interviews for another highly selective school and came home one day grey, for he suspected the candidate had made up an entire financial and family situation. In all three cases we carefully explained our reasoning in our reports. The candidates were not admitted. Perhaps they would not have been admitted regardless, but the suspicion they generated didn’t help their cause.

Well, you suck if you had no absolute proof. You reported someone bc his enthusiasm for the school didn’t add up? This goes for the idiot interviewer who thought an applicant should have been forced to disclose his tax return.

If you want to see how the alumni interview can absolutely determine admissions outcome at Ivy (even when they outwardly May say it’s not determinative), read this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/s/EFQhffUjhR

Stanford Alumni Magazine March 2024
https://stanfordmag.org/contents/admit-one

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I interview for Princeton. Twice caught highly qualified applicants in what I believe were falsehoods — explained in detail why in my report. One asserted something about their EC that was off (I happened to know something about the recognition described); the other asserted something about their enthusiasm for the school that did not add up. My spouse interviews for another highly selective school and came home one day grey, for he suspected the candidate had made up an entire financial and family situation. In all three cases we carefully explained our reasoning in our reports. The candidates were not admitted. Perhaps they would not have been admitted regardless, but the suspicion they generated didn’t help their cause.

Well, you suck if you had no absolute proof. You reported someone bc his enthusiasm for the school didn’t add up? This goes for the idiot interviewer who thought an applicant should have been forced to disclose his tax return.

If you want to see how the alumni interview can absolutely determine admissions outcome at Ivy (even when they outwardly May say it’s not determinative), read this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/s/EFQhffUjhR

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where did the bad interviewer say Princeton?

“I interview for Princeton. Twice caught highly qualified applicants in what I believe were falsehoods — explained in detail why in my report. One asserted something about their EC that was off (I happened to know something about the recognition described); the other asserted something about their enthusiasm for the school that did not add up. My spouse interviews for another highly selective school and came home one day grey, for he suspected the candidate had made up an entire financial and family situation. In all three cases we carefully explained our reasoning in our reports. The candidates were not admitted. Perhaps they would not have been admitted regardless, but the suspicion they generated didn’t help their cause.”

Wowwww