Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on this, should I tell my student to skip the optional interview? It sounds like it is more likely to hurt than help. DC just completed one for Restrictive Early Action, felt it went well but was stressful leading up to it. Would prefer not to do anymore.

No. We know Yale seeks the interviews when it needs more information. We know Dartmouth considers demonstrated interest. I would not skip unless the kid really can’t handle it.

That's very old data. I don't think it was true back then (DS had a yale interview - went nowhere of course) and don't think it is now. no sour grapes - i went to anther ivy and have interviewed for them, but the notion that alumni interviews make a difference is laughable. they don't

Anonymous wrote:Based on this, should I tell my student to skip the optional interview? It sounds like it is more likely to hurt than help. DC just completed one for Restrictive Early Action, felt it went well but was stressful leading up to it. Would prefer not to do anymore.

No. We know Yale seeks the interviews when it needs more information. We know Dartmouth considers demonstrated interest. I would not skip unless the kid really can’t handle it.

Anonymous wrote:Because alums are sick and tired of interviewing hopeful kids for nothing when the acceptance rates are so low. There is no sense of fulfillment when you take time of your day to talk to all kinds of bright, eager young people, many of whom deserve a spot, knowing not one of them is going to get admitted, because the one spot they're all vying for is probably tied up with some hooked candidate. So my guess is, many alums just quit.

The real reason is equity, but this is why I turned down the opportunity.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol talk about ego. “Maybe my write-ups have gotten better?”

If you really think you have anything to do with admissions then the process is even more arbitrary than I thought. Ridiculous.

Based on this, should I tell my student to skip the optional interview? It sounds like it is more likely to hurt than help. DC just completed one for Restrictive Early Action, felt it went well but was stressful leading up to it. Would prefer not to do anymore.

Anonymous wrote:I saw a kid get into a HYP school after multiple ghosting of interviewer then lying about it to admissions. Blamed interviewer. Interviewer said this kid was a lousy person and ego maniac.

Still got in, but it was a football recruit.

I doubt this is at all true. Ivy league schools are D1 schools and usually don't allow the athletes to interview. I was once mistakenly assigned a recruited football player and the school reached out to me and gave me a laundry list of things I was not allowed to talk about with the recruit (which were pretty typical things you would ask a non-athlete applicant). School basically said that if I wanted to go ahead with the interview it was just so the applicant could ask me questions, but I was not to file any kind of interview report or basically ask the athlete anything.

As expected, I offered the athlete the option to talk, but he politely declined.

I saw a kid get into a HYP school after multiple ghosting of interviewer then lying about it to admissions. Blamed interviewer. Interviewer said this kid was a lousy person and ego maniac.

Still got in, but it was a football recruit.

I’ve been an alumni interviewer since the late 90s. I’ve never had a kid get in if I’ve given a negative review. Back in the 90s and 00s, a lot of kids got in so it was more notable. Negative reviews were rare but almost always stemmed from rudeness or disinterest. If kid didn’t reply to multiple messages, was extremely inflexible in scheduling to the point where they clearly had no interest in school, a no show for interview, no preparation, etc. Sometimes kids were clearly only there because their parents made them. Needless to say, I’ve had plenty of positive reviews where kid did not get in.

I agree that the idea that alumni interviews are meaningless is overblown. At my Alma mater, there is a correlation between the highest interview score and admission. Obviously that's not causation, but all (most) of the kids are absolutely fabulous so I do think the evaluation is meaningful. It shows that the alum's impression does mean something, and it's not all institutional priorities. In a sea of perfect candidates, I would definitely be looking at that evaluation if I were an AO.

The real, actual reason some schools are backing off is because they don't have enough alums to do the interviews. I have certainly experienced what other posters described: meeting absurdly talented and wonderful kids who get rejected again and again. It is disheartening.

Anyway, the reason is they want it to be fair since everyone doesn't get one.

I would say. Know your kid and if interviewing not an asset then do not risk.

Anonymous wrote:There’s a former Stanford AO on Instagram who just posted a video on alumni interviews. Basically says the standard positive ones don’t move the needle (how could they?) but the negative ones certainly can and occasionally the ultra positive ones.

This is it in a nutshell. I don't understand anyone who thinks an alumni interview is "meaningless". AO's at highly rejective schools look for all kinds of low-hanging fruit reasons to reject an applicant...since alumni interviewers tend to skew positive in their reports, if a kid gets the lowest score from an interviewer that never gives the lowest score, then that is an easy reject.

Ultra positive may mean the difference if it literally came down to two applicants, but an ultra positive will not have nearly the same positive impact as a very negative.

There’s a former Stanford AO on Instagram who just posted a video on alumni interviews. Basically says the standard positive ones don’t move the needle (how could they?) but the negative ones certainly can and occasionally the ultra positive ones.