<p>I’ve been thinking about this for a few days. This thread makes me think about how hard it has been to let go of our kids at every stage. There are really no right and wrong answers. It is all a matter of how much risk you think is reasonable and how much worry you can tolerate. Remember the first time you left D with a babysitter how you suffered through that decision? I remember turning my car around on the highway to go back and get her three times before deciding she was safe… and the sitter was my mother! Remember the first playdate at a friend’s house? The first boy-girl party? </p>
<p>This is another step in the excruciating process of letting her go. My advice? She’s leaving you, as she should… it’s a done deal… it’s what you’ve prepared her for. You have taught her well, gone over everything. Have confidence in yourself and in her. Listen to the other parents here… walk her to the door, stay in the driveway, caution her before she goes in and say a prayer. She will gain a tremendous amount of independence and confidence from knowing that you trust her and believe in her ability to handle herself. Good luck to you and to us all. Handling our kids growing up is not easy!</p>
<p>There is the VeriChip option of having the kid body-tagged with a tracker, but so far you can only legally use one for “medical” reasons. I’m assuming a really dedicated worrier could find a way.</p>
<p>On several other threads, parents have described refusing to fund college unless their student toes the parents’ line on communication etc. A parent could combine mandatory 24/7 cell phone connection with the student with activating the GPS on the student’s cell phone and back it up with the toe the line financial policy.</p>
<p>I’m not sure why some here are arguing how quickly women were admitted as students in Ivy league schools, and is Radcliffe Ivy league, and questions such as that.</p>
<p>soozievt,
Without going into details, I am aware of an instance where an alumni interviewer made unwanted “advances” on a young interviewee at his home. The girl was too frightened to report the incident, so the story never went further except among her friends (neither family nor college was told). </p>
<p>Note that this was quite a few years ago, and maybe girls would be quicker to make reports today. Nevertheless, going into a private home for an interview places both student and interviewer in awkward positions. It’s a funny power dynamic which generally works to protect the interviewer in the event of an issue. But then again, the interviewer also puts him/herself at risk by not meeting in a public place or having someone “chaperone” the event. Why do it?</p>
<p>The OP’s concerns were well acknowledged and addressed within the first 75 posts of the thread. (We are now past 1000 posts.)</p>
<p>In those first posts, many reasonable suggestions were made to the OP as to how to deal with the situation. These included ways to ask for a change of venue as well as ways to reduce the risk perceived in the home interview itself. They included driving daughter to interview and waiting for her and went as far as having the daughter’s cellphone ready with a preset 911 call to mother should something become amiss. </p>
<p>Only 4 posters in the first 75 posts opined that the home interview itself was inappropriate. Of those 4, only Marian contributed in an manner helpful to the OP with practical suggestions. The other three, who set the tone for the rest of the thread had nothing constructive to offer the OP, but rather took the position that the entire system was so obviously inappropriate that it should be abolished - and anyone who disagreed was to some degree evil or at best stupid - and that included all those horrible people who volunteer to do college interviews. </p>
<p>Don’t see how a “you are evil and stupid” vs. “no we aren’t” argument has a rational end. </p>
<p>It might be worth considering that some of the most persistent “You’re evil” posters clearly dislike alumni interviews period and believe them to be an imposition on their children - wherever they are held. So if as a result of this thread fewer alumni interview and the lack of alumni to interview causes some college to end its alumni interviews - those posters would look at this thread a job well done.</p>
<p>Quick revisit on Oberlin as the nation’s first co-ed institution of higher education (l830’s, since its inception). </p>
<p>Yes, Oberlin was a pioneer in any context. A quick glance shows in its earliest years, a rule that men and women had to walk on separate sidewalks across the street from each other. Looking further, a second rule allows genders to share the same sidewalk IF walking to or from classes. From this resulted the “Oberlin Slow Walk” (documented in Oberlin Historical Society archives). Students readily figured out how to make a 2-block walk last an hour to extend their social opportunities. </p>
<p>If women were cooking for the men in the earliest years, that is wrapped into Oberlin’s motto “Labor and Learning.” ALL students had manual labor requirements – farming or domestic – as part of their education. If they hadn’t been at college, the women would still only be doing laundry and cooking for men but at home. Male students did farming and forestry work. The innovation was injecting work into every student’s college education.</p>
<p>As an old timer on CC, I’d like to welcome you to CC! I see you just joined and found your way to the middle of this thread. </p>
<p>Yours is the FIRST incident mentioned of any inappropriate behavior at an alum interview, amongst thousands who are viewing this thread, on top of all who interview and are privy to many interviews for their alma maters. Whlle I am not doubting your account, it is NOT a first hand account. You write that you are aware of an incident…could be second, third, or fourth hand; we don’t know. While you say you don’t want to give details, we don’t know what sort of “advances” you mean either. So, I’ll have to leave that example for what it is. </p>
<p>Frankly if untoward behavior (“advances” as you say) were to be something an interviewer would attempt, it could be attempted in a private office or in a public area too. Colleges do not stipulate that the interview must be public…many allow interviews in one’s office. So, do you suggest the interviewer not meet at his/her office either? That means that the interviewer must travel some place to conduct these multiple interviews on many different days, rather than have the students come to his/her home or office. Remember these are volunteers. Keep in mind that if the colleges had incidents on record, the procedures would change. </p>
<p>I do not believe that interviews need to be chaperoned. My kids interview for jobs, internships, colleges, and the like and are not chaperoned. These are not random strangers. I don’t find these to be risky situations. I’m more concerned about their risks of traveling to these meetings and all that can happen and I can’t stop that either. They must travel and they must be alone frequently.</p>
<p>Also…you ask…“why do it?” Are you asking me as the interviewer or as the parent of students? As an interviewer, I do it as I am offering an opportunity to students in my region to meet an alum, and to be able to sell themselves to the college through their meeting with me. I like to help young people and I like to give back to my alma mater that I loved as a student. I have had no problems with students wanting to come to my house. I live in a community perhaps where people are more trusting and it is a nice gesture to invite them into my home on behalf of the college. It is inconvenient for me to travel to conduct each interview on top of the calls, the long interview meetings, and the writing of their interview reports. There is hardly anywhere else to meet locally anyway. </p>
<p>As a parent, I have NO qualms about my daughters meeting interviewers who are representing their college who are not random strangers. I consider this to NOT be risky AT ALL but rather an expected and great opportunity for them.I would not want to stop them from all opportunities. Life involves some risks. The college alum interviews are not one of the riskier ventures they have had to engage in.</p>
<p>Nice post Odessytigger. And yes, welcome inded to emptynester, who joined the fair cc ranks just as some of the proponents of the “you are evil and stupid” viewpoint have gone silent, though do continue to read cc (last activity shows on the profile pg). In fact, you posted your first post just a few hours after one last viewed cc. Curious, too, that there seem to be several who are 59 yrs old, and have birthdays on the 18th of the month. I hope when I am 59 (which isn’t all that far away) I am not still glued to cc, LOL.</p>
<p>One last thought- I do not think I agree that if a prospective student did cry “sexual assault” after an alum interview that the “power dynamic” would be in favor of, or protect, the interviewer. In fact, I’d think just the opposite.</p>
<p>soozievt,
I’m actually an “old timer” as well, but I haven’t posted in several years–since my son went off to college. I’m usually a “lurker,” and when I decided to post I couldn’t remember my old screen name or password etc. </p>
<p>Anyway, my daughter is an alumni interviewer and I got hooked on this thread. She too is interested in this exchange and brought up the question of setting rules or boundaries for interviewers. Or even giving them basic training materials–</p>
<p>The incident happened, but it was nearly 30 years ago. You’re right. It could happen in any setting. And you’re also right that I could making the whole thing up or the story could be greatly exaggerated. Perhaps old stories are best forgotten. But this one has bothered me for some time.</p>
<p>I know of way too many parents and kids who are just plain uncomfortable with going into a home for an interview, but they are too afraid of appearing negative by bringing the issue up. Call it what you will, they’re uneasy, feel awkward, whatever. Since the interview is stressful enough, why add this dimension? </p>
<p>Both of my children were interviewed in coffee shops, and both were interviewed for internships–in offices not in homes of complete strangers. My daughter usually conducts her interviews in coffee shops, but has also done them in her office–open door and public. My friends conduct their alumni interviews in a local public library or sometimes at Starbucks again. It just seems more comfortable. But maybe I’m wrong or maybe I’m too bothered by an old story.</p>
<p>Gosh you make me feel elderly…Google always brings College Confidential to the top of certain searches so I duck in once in a while to see what’s up. Once upon a time, I was hooked–really hooked. But now it’s just a passing interest.</p>
<p>The dynamic can work in the reverse. Generally, however, the interviewee defers to the interviewer and keeps grievances quiet or unreported. Who wants to jeopardize an application by complaining about bad behavior or unauthorized requests? </p>
<p>With regard to the larger accusation, it’s just another reason not to put yourself in a less than public venue.</p>
<p>Even if something happened at an interview 30 years ago, the likelihood for that at a college interview is very minimal. I just think my kids do things that have a greater risk than that and they just don’t stop doing things that have extremely low risk. No guarantees in life. </p>
<p>There is no Starbucks here and our library is not open at night and hss limited hours (just a few) on the weekend. </p>
<p>Even if the student is feeling awkward, that is not so terrible. Interviews, by their nature, involve some of that for certain kids. Sometimes they have to delve into things that are not so comfortable. I believe I make my applicants quite comfortable. I tell them on the phone that it is casual and that I won’t be asking anything that they wouldn’t expect me to ask and that I have no trick questions. I make it clear that I don’t have a say as to whether they will be admitted but I can pass on a personal side of the student, as well as any messages they wish me to, to the admissions office. I feel my conversations are very friendly and put the student at ease. I work with applicants in my job as well. I also have two kids just a little bit older than them (and at one time, the same age as them when I was doing interviews at that time). </p>
<p>My kids are in awkward and stressful situations all the time. I have a kid who auditions all the time and has to put herself out there. It just can’t be avoided, nor should it. I really think an alum interview may be stressful, but that doesn’t mean that avoiding the situation is the answer. I think the positive track record with thousands of students over the years speaks for itself.</p>
<p>If a parent is trying to “play the percentages” of their student having a bad experience, don’t you figure the greater number of people in a public venue increases the probability that one will actually do something inappropiate in the student’s presence?</p>
<p>emptynester2 posted: “I know of way too many parents and kids who are just plain uncomfortable with going into a home for an interview, but they are too afraid of appearing negative by bringing the issue up. Call it what you will, they’re uneasy, feel awkward, whatever. Since the interview is stressful enough, why add this dimension?”</p>
<p>This statement and posting 924 totally reflects the opinion of many parents.</p>
<p>I also understand if you feel it is more comfortable at Starbucks or in an office, rather than at a home. But some feel it is more comfortable in a home than in a public venue (where others can watch and listen) or in an office where they may feel very formal (and is often also one on one anyway). So, different levels of comfort for different scenarios do vary from person to person, I realize. But in terms of risk, I think the risks at a home are not higher than in a public venue or office.</p>
<p>“Many” parents? A handful perhaps, but if this thread is a microcosm of the real world, “many” is a vast overstatement. No need to link to that lady’s blog again either. Sure, a few people posted there. But there seems to be no compelling data to support your statement, other than your opinion. Even Dean J posted early on in this thread that this seems to be a non issue (I am paraphrasing). Why make a big to do about nothing. There simply ARENT many parents who feel as you do. We all talk to parents of college applicants all the time. In all the years I and others have been through this process, this is the first I’ve heard anyone bring this up. Yes- if it were a cultural issue, I can understand. But as to the “many” parents who feel as you do, well where are they??</p>
<p>Starbucks or any busy place causes other kind of problems, too.
A school, city hall, organized interviews may be the solution instead of home interviews.</p>
<p>Let’s not consider the personal problems of the interviewers; "My house is better for an interview, I live in a rural area, I don’t know how to coordinate with a school, the school will say no to my request, I can interview in underwear, I can interview at the time is more comfortable for me…we have read many things here so far…</p>
<p>As you see there are some very “active” interviewers here in this thread…some parent don’t want to post anymore their opinions</p>
<p>emptynester2–if “way too many parents and students” were unconfortable with mixed sex dorms and with letting that fact be known, should a college not offer them? If “way too many parents and students” were unconfortable with having the races or religions mixed in the dorms or class rooms and with letting that fact be known, should a college not offer them? </p>
<p>Because it hasn’t been said in a while, I’ll say it again: Most (not all) of the students or recent students who have posted in this thread said either that they had no problem with in-home interviews or preferred them to Starbucks. </p>
<p>In my area, in-home means “easy to get to, comfortable, private”. Office means “at least an hour and a half of travel time, and paying for the train or parking” and also “very formal”. Starbucks means “everyone knows what you are doing, and half of them can hear what you are saying”.</p>