Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I find this hard to believe. I interview for another Ivy and was once assigned a committed athlete. I thought that was strange, and sure enough I received an email from admissions telling me it was a mistake…but if I wanted to talk to the athlete I could answer their questions but shouldn’t ask the athlete any questions because I could ask something violates NCAA guidelines (which they did not expect me to be familiar).

I reached out and asked if the kid if he wanted to talk…as expected he said no thanks.

I don’t know why there are posters that are hell bent on saying alumni interviews are meaningless…they literally are for some Ivy schools now…but for others like Harvard, Yale and Princeton (at least)…they do mean something on the margins.

I would be shocked to see if any kids are accepted with terrible alumni interview reports…which of course doesn’t change that most with tremendous interview reports are also rejected.

The thing is the people in this thread are semi-nobodies. Despite graduating Ivy, they are nobodies in the grand scheme of these schools. So they are assigned nobodies who will never get it.

Do you think Malia Obama was interviewed by User 12.17 on DCUM? No, and others like her will be assigned the high ranking alumni who actually do have some kind of influence.

This is why they are saying they have been interviewing kids for 10 years but none get in. It's a false fallacy. i.e. Because noone I interviewed got in, this means the interviews don't matter.

There is some rich and successful interviewer out there who knly conducts 4 interviews and 75% get in every year.

On this issue, their point of view is determined by their status in society.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I find this hard to believe. I interview for another Ivy and was once assigned a committed athlete. I thought that was strange, and sure enough I received an email from admissions telling me it was a mistake…but if I wanted to talk to the athlete I could answer their questions but shouldn’t ask the athlete any questions because I could ask something violates NCAA guidelines (which they did not expect me to be familiar).

I reached out and asked if the kid if he wanted to talk…as expected he said no thanks.

I don’t know why there are posters that are hell bent on saying alumni interviews are meaningless…they literally are for some Ivy schools now…but for others like Harvard, Yale and Princeton (at least)…they do mean something on the margins.

I would be shocked to see if any kids are accepted with terrible alumni interview reports…which of course doesn’t change that most with tremendous interview reports are also rejected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally oversee interviews for Princeton. We are told in explicit instructions that alums are ambassadors for the school and that we should not convey we have any say in admissions cuz we don’t. They may have once meant something—but they do not anymore. Your kid should do them to show interest but they should NOT stress about them because they are not going to determine whether they get in.

Lol totes credible. Cuz

Anonymous wrote:I literally oversee interviews for Princeton. We are told in explicit instructions that alums are ambassadors for the school and that we should not convey we have any say in admissions cuz we don’t. They may have once meant something—but they do not anymore. Your kid should do them to show interest but they should NOT stress about them because they are not going to determine whether they get in.

Anonymous wrote:Dartmouth meaningless

Anonymous wrote:

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:DD was just contacted for an interview. I know the majority of applicants are offered the opportunity if an interviewer lives nearby. But is there any sorting that happens before AOs assign interviews? Would an Ivy spend volunteer resources on an applicant who has no chance of being admitted? I realize the odds aren’t in her favor - just looking for a sliver of hope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In most cases it's part of keeping alums engaged.

There was a thread about this here, and the common refrain was no one the interviewers interviewed were accepted.

Seems like a silly way to keep alum engaged. They are asking smart people to waste their time and think their smart alum are too dumb not to realize their time is being wasted!?

Anonymous wrote:In most cases it's part of keeping alums engaged.