It is an interesting idea that @JustOneDad is proposing, though I am not sure how much value it would have. The only question there that I would potentially value is “What did you think of the interview?” It might provide some information, but it would be unusual. I cannot recall any interview experience I have ever had as a candidate from applying for jobs, to applying for charity and volunteer organisations, where I have been asked afterwards to feed back on how my interviewer did. Just because it is unusual does not of course mean that it is wrong, but I do think that this would be harder than @JustOneDad thinks it would be.
The location question is an odd one. The official guidance on location from MIT (and almost all the peer schools) is highly clear. The interview should take place in a public place, a coffee shop, library, etc. We do not interview in either the students or the EC’s home, and we try not to interview in workplaces if at all possible. Beyond that, I am not sure what the question would give. I recall one interview that I held in a coffee shop where I had interviewed many times before without incident, but on this day, we were blessed with a full on screaming, yelling fight going on across the coffee shop. It did make the location inappropriate on that day, and I noted that in the interview report, but it had been appropriate on all previous occasions.
Did you get all your questions answered is another tricky one. I have had a student ask me about MIT’s Balinese Gamelan ensemble (which I actually was able to talk about), one ask about the MIT Assassin’s Guild, and one about the MIT Tiddlywinks association (arguably with Cornell, the strongest collegiate Tiddlywinks program). I have no problem with that. I think that it is great that a student should ask about all of their interests, but I am not sure it says much about the interview, if I cannot go into depth about everything.
But I could see the value in “What did you think about the interview?” The question is whether the value is commensurate with the effort required. I would think that these reports would need to be read centrally, by the admissions office in order for them to have most value. However, from late October until the Spring, the admissions office is reading hundreds of pages, letters and reports. I don’t reasonably think that they can read them until after the class is admitted, which would allow them to correct any serious issues only in retrospect. The applicants would need to fill in this form after the interview, understanding that it would not be read for 6 months or so. I fear that applicants who have had bad or strange interview experiences would struggle to be open about these given that they are still in the process of applying. Also, the sanctions that we have are limited. We do drop interviewers who are not working out, but our EC community are unpaid volunteers who donate vast numbers of hours to MIT.
Th other obvious problem is what to do with those interviews that really have gone badly for other reasons.I recall one occasion when I asked an applicant what their hobbies were, if any, and one applicant replied that they really enjoyed [a quite rare pastime]. By blind chance, I was an afficionando of precisely that pastime, and my face lit up and I started to try to talk about it, only to find that the applicant wasn’t really interested in it at all, but had made that up in an attempt to appear more interesting. Then there is the whole question of deliberately-blown interviews. On a rare but regular basis, we encounter kids who deliberately sabotage their interviews. Sometimes they are quite open about it, saying something like “Look, I really do not want to go to MIT at all, but my parents are insisting that I apply. This interview is the only part of the application that I submit that my parents cannot see, so what do I have to say to get you to write that I am a lousy candidate for MIT.” Sometimes they do not say it as clearly, but the intention is quite clear. The interview feedback form would be seen by the parents, and I suspect would be quite savage.
But even with all of the pitfalls and challenges, I do acknowledge that this process would give us clearer feedback on every EC. Then someone in the educational council office in Cambridge would need to go through all of the interview feedback forms and determine what action needs to be taken for each EC. And our sanctions are limited. We do and have dropped ECs that aren’t working out, but our ECs are all unpaid volunteers that donate dozens of hours of work to MIT each year. It can be hard work to recruit ECs. Really I think that the output in most cases might be more individualised training for each EC, but that is tricky too, because someone in the admissions office would need to be paid to put these messages together for delivery to the ECs. I will submit the idea formally to MIT, but I have my doubts that it will happen.