<p>I went to lunch today with a guy I’ve known for several years. He asked how my college son was doing, etc. This brought up college and it turned out he attended an Ivy. I asked about interviews and he mentioned that he had done the (optional) interviews as an alum interviewer for the last 20 years (except for one year when he’d recently undergone surgery).</p>
<p>He told me he had conducted the interviews at this home. I asked him about venue changes. He said that since he was in a large city he only did local applicants and only had dealt with date and time issues. </p>
<p>I asked him if he had ever had parents come along for the interview or do anything that had stuck out as out of the norm. He said not really, but that he had developed what he thought was a sense for what were “parent questions” a few applicants seemed to have been told to ask. He made it a habit when he thought those were the questions being asked to comment that those were just like many questions that his parents had wanted to know. </p>
<p>He’d then relate that his personal favorite question asked him years ago in the process of his interview for his application to that school was “what would you like to know that your parents wouldn’t think to ask?” He said he recalled 2 particular questions. One was what were the available arrangements if you lived in a dorm and didn’t go home for major breaks. The other was whether there were phone connections in the individual dorm rooms and/or on the dorm floor.</p>
<p>He said that at some point he asked if the not going home for breaks was a concern about the difficulty and delays of getting out of the college town to major transportation hubs. The applicant opened up and said that he was really looking forward to taking “a break” from his parents. </p>
<p>The phone question was made back before cell phones were like standard issue appendages. He told the applicant that there were phone connections in each dorm room, but they required individualized contracts with the telephone service provider. The applicant asked if there were pay phones on the floors. He said that he believed there were and assured the applicant that she would have multiple ways to get phone calls. He said the student said that she had hoped that there weren’t phones in the rooms because her parents had bugged her sister so much that the sister had complained to her that it made the academics more difficult fielding their never-ending calls and, when the sister did not answer the room phone, the parents called the floor phone so often that it was embarrassing.</p>
<p>I’m not so sure these questions (and the concerns they reflect) would have been asked if the parents were in the home of the interviewer or if the applicant and the interviewer were hanging out in a public place to have the conversation overheard or the interviewee was on the phone at the parents’ home for them to overhear.</p>
<p>Just for the record: I did not attend an Ivy… Believe all interviewers are merely human but do not believe that ANY interviewer from any school has evil intentions.</p>
<p>re phone interviews… Not sure how I feel about this. There is just something about seeing the person’s face… the “white of their eyes” so to speak.</p>
<p>No, only a few … did, and they were shot down. The vast majority of people on this thread know that whether the interview was for an Ivy or not has zero to do with anything.</p>
<p>Excuse me, soozievt, I didn’t make myself clear.</p>
<p>I know that applicants are informed that they may be called by an alumni interviewer. But I think that the venue for such an interview (i.e., whether or not the interviewer’s home is considered an acceptable location) is often not obvious to the applicant.</p>
<p>I don’t think that the OP or her daughter would had any problem with an alumni interview in a public place.</p>
<p>Many of the interviewers here attended smaller schools and/or LACs, not necessarily ivys. The smaller schools do, IMO, work hard to put together the right class for their school. The readers read the applications several times and I am surmising that during the discussions of candidates,alum interview notes might be discussed, if appropriate, or to help make a decision between several candidates. The readers might also take note of the interview comments during their intital read and presentation of candidates they recommend. Just postulating. Point is, doesn’t matter, as many have said, whether it is or is not an “ivy”.</p>
<p>Sezon…I don’t think this has any relation to Ivy interviewers having “deity” status whatsoever. As I wrote once on this thread (don’t expect ya to read the whole thread), as soon as I saw the first post, my reaction was “what does this have to do with Ivy?” The question seems (to me) about ANY alum interview. Ivy interviews are no different than any other when it comes to this question. It seems irrelevant to me if this is an Ivy interview or not. ALL of my responses on this thread about the interview venue issue has no thought at all as to whether it is an Ivy League school or not. Who cares? I don’ think that the points people are making on behalf of interviewers are attributable to being from an Ivy or not. Rather, the interviewer is a volunteer who is offering something and so the interviewer is not on equal ground as the interviewee.</p>
<p>For disclosure, I am an alumni interviewer for a selective university that is NOT an Ivy League School. While I did attend an Ivy for grad school, that is irrelevant. </p>
<p>Marian, I understand your point that they would know about the alum interviews ahead of time. Thanks for clarification. I suppose they may not know where these will take place (though I quoted a few colleges’ sites up thread where it is clear that the interview may be conducted at an alumni’s home)…they still can opt out of the interview when they get the offer, request a different venue and see if that can be worked out, or take the plunge and do something that is uncomfortable (but realistically not risky in terms of safety). Options still abound.</p>
<p>I don’t believe a young lady or any woman should be asked to interview alone in a man’s home-IVY or LAC alumni or not. At best, the male interviewer should have his wife or other FEMALE alumni in the room and should let the student know this ahead of time. Yes, it is wondeful that they donate their time, but that doesn’t make it safe, not does it instruct your daughter about appropriateness and safety in her future interactions in life. When a woman goes to a gynecologist (male or female doc) they always have a nurse or other female in the room. It is required to protect everyone’s interest these days. I mean, shouldn’t you be able to trust your physician who went to medical school, is really bright, and is, after all, a professional?–N0, because all those attributes doesn’t deem a person or situation safe. I am guessing there were a few instances out of millions of appts over the last 50 years in an OB GYN office that created a problem and thus the new procedure. Male priests/pastors (those in my opinion of any proprietary) will tell you they do not meet with female parishioners without another female on staff in the room. In business I was once asked by a very trustworthy boss to meet for a meeting in his room early in the morning before a conference. No matter how long or well I knew him, I wouldn’t do it alone. He was put off at first but finally realized it did seem inappropriate. I felt bad and thought it might impact my future advancement but in the end he understood and my career no worse for it. </p>
<p>My point, have the interview in the home, but have a female alumni present and explain why in advance, otherwise find a public venue.</p>
<p>“When a woman goes to a gynecologist (male or female doc) they always have a nurse or other female in the room. It is required to protect everyone’s interest these days.”</p>
<p>What? This is not required by any law or regulation that I’m aware of, and I am always alone with my doctor during an examination.</p>
<p>Well, North2South there are very few interview circumstances that I can think of where the interviewer begins with “Why don’t you take off your clothes?” If you meet with your attorney or accountant, do you insist that there be a female member of his staff present? Is that because he is going to tell you that you will be billed for the presence of the staff member or because “its not the same” as an OB/GYN or college interviewer?</p>
<p>As far as I know, the issue with the gynecologist is that the patient is naked, on a table, and sometimes is given a mild sedative or anesthesia; the doctor is fully clothed and upright. Call me when your kid shows up at a college interview and is asked to disrobe.</p>
<p>I am still struck by the degree to which “safe” is apparantly THE GOAL of many people. Safety is an illusion, since there is risk in just being alive. </p>
<p>IMO, everyone has to assess the risk of situations and where there is an exceptable risk, act whether or not there is another hypothetically “safer” way to proceed where the amount of risk of the riskiest option is very small.</p>
<p>If you always avoided all risk, you’d never live. If you have to decide between an elevator to exit the 10th floor of a building, you have risk either way. The elevator could malfunction and you would be at higher risk if it fell 10 floors than you would be if you tripped on the stairs. But, you could get molested in the stairwell or the elevator, but you have to get down to the ground floor. </p>
<p>How does anyone function if avoidance of all risk is the guiding principle? Even “avoid all unnecessary risk” turns a person into an actuary.</p>
<p>My oncologist is a male and he has never had another nurse or assistant in the room during our exams or conversations. My female gyn does her own exams without anyone else present. My mom’s GP doesn’t have anyone else in the room either. So I don’t think what North2South says is a universal practice. Perhaps just with male gyns, maybe? And I do think that the gyn is in a bit more personal situation than a college interviewer ;)</p>
<p>In any case, considering the way things are done today in the business world and the equality of the sexes that we hope to maintain in the future, I really don’t see that it’s inappropriate for women and men to be together, alone, and I wouldn’t want my daughter to think that she can’t be alone with another male without someone else present without it seeming “unladylike” or inappropriate. Good heavens, my husband is with female employees all the time- even younger attractive ones. It’s part of the job.
When I worked in the publishing field years ago (70’s) men and women worked closely together on projects, often into the night and out of the office. It’s the way of the world today. Women need to be comfortable around the opposite sex and not think that guys are automatically not to be trusted. Anyway, I completely disagree with North2South.</p>
<p>If I had taught my daughter that it was inappropriate to be alone with males, she would not be able to be in the occupation she has chosen for her life’s work. It requires her to actually work in the field, sometimes sleeping in tents or less, and be completely comfortable with men and herself. She is single, and 25. I think she would laugh so hard if she read this thread. :D</p>
<p>“In business I was once asked by a very trustworthy boss to meet for a meeting in his room early in the morning before a conference. No matter how long or well I knew him, I wouldn’t do it alone. He was put off at first but finally realized it did seem inappropriate. I felt bad and thought it might impact my future advancement but in the end he understood and my career no worse for it.”</p>
<p>If one of the young lawyers I advise refused to discuss a case in the partner’s office without a chaperone present, she would be fired, and rightly so. The firm cannot function without some basic trust operating between professionals. If the partner has a history of inappropriate behavior, then that would be different, but you cannot possibly operate a law firm in an atmosphere of generalized suspicion.</p>
<p>And I’m pretty sure that law partners get the concept of avoiding liability. That’s what they counsel others to do all day. Not even labor & employment specialists keep a chaperone present.</p>
<p>I brought this up earlier, as my H is an OB and indeed does have a female nurse present at all times during an examination, precisely because of the risk of being falsely accused of inappropriate behavior. It is not “required” but it’s a way to protect himself.</p>
<p>Having said that, don’t you think the risk of being accused of inappropriate behavior (or, of having what is actually appropriate behavior during an exam be misinterpreted as inappropriate behavior) is a tidge higher when clothes are off and physical touching is part of the process?</p>
<p>I can’t even begin to compare that situation to meeting with a male boss in a work setting alone. How could anyone function in the business world if they adhered to men and women never being in an office with closed doors? How could you possibly raise your daughter to never be in a closed-door setting with another man?</p>
<p>That’s how you treat people you know and trust?</p>
<p>Not in my world, and I hope not in my kids’ world, either.</p>
<p>As a matter of politeness and cultural sensitivity, I would try to accommodate a person like this. But I’m not going to pretend I think it’s even in the ballpark of acceptable on any other basis. And if she were a college applicant, all I can say is that she had better have really, really, really great essays.</p>
<p>You do bring up a good point, JHS. If anyone on this thread is not an American citizen, or has been raised in another country with a more strict division between the sexes, it would be wise to understand the current American business practices if you have a daughter who hopes to flourish in the United States. A person of either sex who is unaccustomed to being with the opposite sex unchaperoned will have a very big adjustment to make living in the U.S.</p>
<p>Hanna are you using your legal’s skills? Umm
Nort2South said that she will not meet with his boss in his “ROOM”; she did not said in his office. Good for her not only she needs to be honest but to appear as well…</p>
<p>Then you present a situation, I assume, of two lawyers meeting in the partner’s office.
“If one of the young lawyers I advise refused to discuss a case in the partner’s office without a chaperone present, she would be fired, and rightly so.”
Two different situations. Further, lawyers know well what will happen to them if they cross their line…</p>
<p>moonchild: The issue is not if a male or female are together…The point is that it is inappropriate and unprofessional to conduct interviews in the Interviewer’s house for many reasons already discussed through the thread.</p>
<p>And that is your opinion. Not mine, nor the opinion of many others. I would venture to say “most others.” </p>
<p>But I was responding to the poster who wanted to teach her daughter that it wasn’t appropriate to be alone with a male in an interview situation, which is a fairly comfortable situation compared to what is expected in the working world, much less what the students will encounter in college.</p>