I oversaw this process for an Ivy school for several years. I was responsible for a few thousand students in my region who requested interviews. There was no rhyme or reason to how or which kids got assigned. It had zero to do with who was “excellent” or who wasn’t, as I had no info on any kid besides their names and contact info. I just randomly attached alum volunteers to each name—there was no other way to do it. And if someone didn’t get an interview, it was just because we ran out of alum volunteers or an alum flaked—again zero to do with the kid’s application or chances. Kids and parents read all this meaning into these interviews—when there is none. I stopped doing it partly cuz I found it so cynical. The schools do this to keep alumni engaged, willfully misleading them into thinking their opinion matters, when no Ivy school.is making admissions decisions based on these interviews.

Again, the idea that elite colleges would spend vast sums, time, and energy creating very sophisticated, standardized rubrics and other highly correlated scoring systems for evaluating applicants with paid, trained admissions officers and then throw that over to give weight to the arbitrary opinions of thousands of utterly rando, untrained alums, opining on applicants they’ve known for 30 minutes, is absurd on its face.

Interesting discussion! My 100% unhooked daughter had a few last year. She felt Dartmouth went terribly (unengaging woman in her mid-20s) -- rejected. Georgetown went great (guy in his late 20s; they had tons to talk about) -- rejected. Cornell went great (man in his early 80s) -- admitted. Columbia (for one of the dual BA programs) went terribly (professor/alum who was quite antagonistic and challenging [I heard it from the next room]) -- admitted. It's all a bit of a crapshoot!

I was an alumni interview for Vanderbilt over three years, just prior to Covid. 1) They didn't give me any info about the kids; the first I heard of them was when they contacted me via email. 2) We were asked to complete quite a detailed questionnaire about each kid. 3) I did about 20 interviews total, I found almost all of them really impressive except the one who told me Vanderbilt was her safety (not any more, sweetie). 4) They sent me an annual summary of the kids' outcomes; only one ever got in and she got some crazy kind of scholarship.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Do the alumni read the applications beforehand to tailor the questions and get more info if needed, or are they more generic?

I am a different Princeton interviewer (not now, in the past). Nope, we never see the application and have zero information on the applicant except for a name, email, and high school.

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around. Here’s my experience …

Last year, over 25 students (including my kid) applied R-EA to Stanford. Around 10 of those applicants - again, all 25+ from the same public school community - were contacted for interviews. My kid was one of them.

All of the reading I did at that time suggested that the interviews have zero influence over the admissions process.

My kid was deferred during R-EA and ultimately rejected by Stanford, but I happened to have a business meeting this past spring with a different alumni interviewer. When I mentioned that my kid had very recently been rejected, he - without any prompting on my part about the interview process - assured me that the interviews are prioritized and that each interview results in a rating that is submitted to the admissions committee. According to this guy, the rating is VERY MUCH part of the discussion during consideration of applicants. YMMV.

We know from the Harvard litigation discovery that Harvard also had a prioritization system in place.

I believe (but can’t prove) that Dartmouth does as well in areas with insufficient interviewers. But here in DC area, I believe everyone gets an interview.

That’s Stanford, amazing school, but people are referring to Ivies and their known procedures. What has been posted is correct, they are for alumni engagement.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around. Here’s my experience …

Last year, over 25 students (including my kid) applied R-EA to Stanford. Around 10 of those applicants - again, all 25+ from the same public school community - were contacted for interviews. My kid was one of them.

All of the reading I did at that time suggested that the interviews have zero influence over the admissions process.

My kid was deferred during R-EA and ultimately rejected by Stanford, but I happened to have a business meeting this past spring with a different alumni interviewer. When I mentioned that my kid had very recently been rejected, he - without any prompting on my part about the interview process - assured me that the interviews are prioritized and that each interview results in a rating that is submitted to the admissions committee. According to this guy, the rating is VERY MUCH part of the discussion during consideration of applicants. YMMV.

I’ve done interviews for the Ivy I graduated from. They are desperate for interviewers. They give you almost no training. It was apparent to me that they don’t give much weight to the write ups that come out of the interviews. I took mine seriously. Met so many fabulous students from NoVA where I live. Some got in some didn’t. I’m certainly I had no role in it. Not interviewing this year. My kid is a senior. Not applying to my Alma mater. He has no interest. But applying to a few ivies. None early.

Anonymous wrote:Do the alumni read the applications beforehand to tailor the questions and get more info if needed, or are they more generic?

No, of course not.

No of course they don’t give rando alums copies of students confidential applications. Tens of thousand of alums are required to do alums interviews at any scale. There is zero quality control for these interviewers, so of course they are not going to share a student’s file or take a rando alum’s opinion seriously. Alumn interviews are about **alum engagement**, not the applicant. It drives me crazy that kids fret about these interviews needlessly. This also means the alum who tells yr kid they’re a great candidate isn’t getting your kid in. I used to say something similarly to virtually every kid I interviewed cuz you could tell they were stressed for no reason. The only reason to do the interview is to show interest in school and it’s a low-stakes way to practice interviewing for a time when it may actually count.

Do the alumni read the applications beforehand to tailor the questions and get more info if needed, or are they more generic?

I used to oversee my region’s alumni interviews for my top Ivy school. Alumni interviews are a way to engage ALUMNI, who act as ambassadors and salesmen for the schools but whose views don’t influence admissions; unless your kid bombs (eg ghosts an interview multiple times as I had occasionally happen), I believe they make zero difference. (And a student who does that likely isn’t getting in anyway, as it suggest broader poor habits.) Colleges spend enormous sums creating **extremely sophisticated and nuance** rubrics/scoring for admissions, training readers etc. Why on earth, given this, would they give credence to some rando, basically unvetted alum, often someone who graduated in the Stone Ages and holds antiquated views (still regrets their alma mater’s decision to admit women or blacks) when making a decision?!?! promise you they don’t. My prediction is these interviews will cease to exist in a few years as the only reason alums volunteered to do them (numbers of alums required are enormous) was in vain hope it’d give their **own kid**a leg up in admissions. (I don’t think was true either.) But with elimination of legacy, it definitely isn’t true. And schools get embarrassed by alumns who insult candidates with their arrogance and retrograde views. I used to feel for kids who’d read into their school asking some kids for interviews and not others when the only reason for this was not enough alums in their area (which also happened in any no-rich area becuz rah-rah Ivy alums from Class of 1975 are often rich). Schools don’t share admission info with the alum volunteers who arrange these interviews becuz—of course they don’t for privacy reasons. So process of assigning is completely random. So any parent out there stressing out your kid about this: Don’t. I mean, sure do the interview as a way of expressing interest in the school. But otherwise: It. Does.Not. Matter. This is solely for interviews conducted by alums. I can’t speak to those conducted by actual admissions officers, which I imagine are more impactful. Fwiw.

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

Then you just haven't gotten the good applicants - I recall one that went very well - "Princeton could use a guy like Joel."

My understanding is that Harvard determines interviews based on the number of alumni interviewers in the area. That they try to interview as many as possible, but it's more about keeping alumni engaged than a meaningful contribution to the application in most cases. Most of the kids I've interviewed were solid but didn't have that extra 'sauce' Harvard generally looks for (which may or may not include legacy, big donor, unusual academic achievement, singular talent etc.) Still, they all seem to have met, generally at least, the bar. None were admitted, even the few I thought had a shot and recommended very highly.

Incredibly tough to get in from DMV schools, given the number of specially-connected kids in the area. What regular kid is going to get in when the competition in a given year might include a Supreme Court Justice's or President's kids?
--Harvard alumni interviewer