Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Dartmouth alum and used to interview students every year.

For a while, the school tried to offer every applicant an interview (except in rural areas without alumni), but interviews are not guaranteed anymore with more student to applying. The point of the interview was to allow applicants to ask questions about the school and not to judge the applicants. Getting an interview only means that the school found an available alum to interview, and provides no indication about admissions.

I stopped interviewing because no one I liked got in, and a couple of student I didn't like were admitted (and didn't end up going). Mostly, I didn't like students who knew nothing about Dartmouth and basically applied to the US News top 20 list. I had one applicant who only wanted to be in an urban areas and thought Dartmouth was close to Boston. I gave bad feedback about the applicant to the admissions office, but kid still got in and chose to go elsewhere.

But you don't see their applications. One interview is a small piece of the larger puzzle.

If schools are looking for kids who want to be there, someone thinking Dartmouth is urban and you can go drinking in Boston on Friday nights means they have done zero research about the school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Dartmouth alum and used to interview students every year.

For a while, the school tried to offer every applicant an interview (except in rural areas without alumni), but interviews are not guaranteed anymore with more student to applying. The point of the interview was to allow applicants to ask questions about the school and not to judge the applicants. Getting an interview only means that the school found an available alum to interview, and provides no indication about admissions.

I stopped interviewing because no one I liked got in, and a couple of student I didn't like were admitted (and didn't end up going). Mostly, I didn't like students who knew nothing about Dartmouth and basically applied to the US News top 20 list. I had one applicant who only wanted to be in an urban areas and thought Dartmouth was close to Boston. I gave bad feedback about the applicant to the admissions office, but kid still got in and chose to go elsewhere.

But you don't see their applications. One interview is a small piece of the larger puzzle.

Anonymous wrote:I am a Dartmouth alum and used to interview students every year.

For a while, the school tried to offer every applicant an interview (except in rural areas without alumni), but interviews are not guaranteed anymore with more student to applying. The point of the interview was to allow applicants to ask questions about the school and not to judge the applicants. Getting an interview only means that the school found an available alum to interview, and provides no indication about admissions.

I stopped interviewing because no one I liked got in, and a couple of student I didn't like were admitted (and didn't end up going). Mostly, I didn't like students who knew nothing about Dartmouth and basically applied to the US News top 20 list. I had one applicant who only wanted to be in an urban areas and thought Dartmouth was close to Boston. I gave bad feedback about the applicant to the admissions office, but kid still got in and chose to go elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some cases a bad interview can ding you, or a fabulous interview can give you a little boost. But most are neutral. Alumni interviewers don’t see the actual applications, so are going in blind. And they have no idea what “bucket” an applicant may or may not fill—possible major (surfeit of STEM means that’s especially tough), needed instrument or athletic interest, whatever. Elite schools are looking for a range of diversity and have a lot of little buckets they need to fill. Alumni interviewers have zero insight into that. Now that I understand that, I’m more positive about participating. Like a PP, I also stopped for a while because I felt disappointed about so many amazing-seeming candidates getting rejected.

This is what I have always heard everywhere. Interviews are neutral---unless you are plain awful and a psycho and say some crazy sh*t--then it is a negative.

Alumni have said they have rated some applicants as outstanding/above and beyond---and found out later they were rejected.

The interview isn't going to be much help---but it can hurt a psycho.

I think PP's post was more nuanced than that. Interesting point that alumni don't see the actual applications.

My kid has had 3 Ivy interviews (RD apps) and all were matched to his indicated area of study—fairly specifically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some cases a bad interview can ding you, or a fabulous interview can give you a little boost. But most are neutral. Alumni interviewers don’t see the actual applications, so are going in blind. And they have no idea what “bucket” an applicant may or may not fill—possible major (surfeit of STEM means that’s especially tough), needed instrument or athletic interest, whatever. Elite schools are looking for a range of diversity and have a lot of little buckets they need to fill. Alumni interviewers have zero insight into that. Now that I understand that, I’m more positive about participating. Like a PP, I also stopped for a while because I felt disappointed about so many amazing-seeming candidates getting rejected.

This is what I have always heard everywhere. Interviews are neutral---unless you are plain awful and a psycho and say some crazy sh*t--then it is a negative.

Alumni have said they have rated some applicants as outstanding/above and beyond---and found out later they were rejected.

The interview isn't going to be much help---but it can hurt a psycho.

I think PP's post was more nuanced than that. Interesting point that alumni don't see the actual applications.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some cases a bad interview can ding you, or a fabulous interview can give you a little boost. But most are neutral. Alumni interviewers don’t see the actual applications, so are going in blind. And they have no idea what “bucket” an applicant may or may not fill—possible major (surfeit of STEM means that’s especially tough), needed instrument or athletic interest, whatever. Elite schools are looking for a range of diversity and have a lot of little buckets they need to fill. Alumni interviewers have zero insight into that. Now that I understand that, I’m more positive about participating. Like a PP, I also stopped for a while because I felt disappointed about so many amazing-seeming candidates getting rejected.

This is what I have always heard everywhere. Interviews are neutral---unless you are plain awful and a psycho and say some crazy sh*t--then it is a negative.

Alumni have said they have rated some applicants as outstanding/above and beyond---and found out later they were rejected.

The interview isn't going to be much help---but it can hurt a psycho.

Anonymous wrote:In some cases a bad interview can ding you, or a fabulous interview can give you a little boost. But most are neutral. Alumni interviewers don’t see the actual applications, so are going in blind. And they have no idea what “bucket” an applicant may or may not fill—possible major (surfeit of STEM means that’s especially tough), needed instrument or athletic interest, whatever. Elite schools are looking for a range of diversity and have a lot of little buckets they need to fill. Alumni interviewers have zero insight into that. Now that I understand that, I’m more positive about participating. Like a PP, I also stopped for a while because I felt disappointed about so many amazing-seeming candidates getting rejected.

Anonymous wrote:You need to have a great interview.

Anonymous wrote:You need to have a great interview.

Anonymous wrote:Interviews more generally for RD. Yale says it interviews kids in the gray area between clear admit and non-admits. Got it. Gtown says it interviews everyone. Got it. But Harvard’s website (quoted below) now sounds a lot like the Yale approach. And Duke tries to interview everyone who applied by Dec. 20 but we haven’t heard. The schools always say it’s based on alumni availability, and there are lots of alums in the DMV. Any sense of percentage they actually interview AROUND HERE? And if Harvard is only interviewing on-the-fence-about applicants?

“Applicants are assigned interviews at the discretion of the Admissions Committee, based, in part, on availability of alumni in your local area. Nearly 10,000 alumni/ae volunteers help us recruit students from all 50 states and around the world, but most areas do not have the capacity to interview all applicants. Your application is considered complete without an interview and will receive a full and thorough evaluation. In most cases, the Admissions Committee has sufficient information in the student’s application materials to reach an admissions decision. If the Committee would like more information about a student or has questions about any application materials, someone may reach out to schedule an interview.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Locally, one might get filtered out by a Dartmouth Alum interview, but there is very little chance of filtering in because of the interview. As PP noted, lots of alumni/alumnae here, so most applicants will get an interview.

In that scenario, why would anyone agree to do one then? I mean if they are only using it to possibly exclude your or be neutral. Seems like its chancier to do it and risk getting someone that doesn't like you because you remind me of somebody they hate or they don't like your privilege, etc.