<p>
D had a similar interview (and similar response from the interviewer) with Duke. Result? Waitlist. LOL. She declined.</p>
<p>Richard Shaw moved from Yale to Stanford in 2005 (the year Stanford admitted my S without an interview). I have not seen that Stanford has introduced interviews as part of the admission process.</p>
<p>Interviews when done right can be extremely helpful. But their helpfulness or importance should not be overblown.</p>
<p>My son told the Harvard interviewer that the reason he hadn’t applied single choice early action was that it wasn’t his first choice. Didn’t seem to hurt him! I think it’s pretty rare that alumni make a big difference one way or another, just another piece in the puzzle - and a fairly small one at that.</p>
<p>Earlier in this thread Malcolm Gladwell’s New Yorker article “Getting In” wass quoted. That article is mostly introducing the idea of Karabel’s book “The Chosen”. Gladwell would readily admit that he knows more about interviews than Ivy League admission. Since we are talking about interviews, it makes sense to read Gladwell’s other New Yorker article “The New-Boy Network”.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_05_29_a_interview.htm[/url]”>http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_05_29_a_interview.htm</a></p>
<p>The article is really about job interview rather than college interview. However what he said is even more relevant to college interview because a college interview is even less involved with a particular subject matter.</p>
<p>In the article he cites an experiment where interviewers rated candidates after 20 minutes of interview. Then the first 15 seconds of the taped interview was shown to observers and they also do the rating. “On nine out of the eleven traits the applicants were being judged on, the observers significantly predicted the outcome of the interview”. In other words the 15 seconds of first impression dominates the interview. Gladwell don’t think this is necessary bad, since he is a believer in gut reaction. However he also warns against the “Warren Harding error.” (not in the article), where a good impression can lead us to a wrong conclusion.</p>
<p>Gladwell’s conclusion in the article is that “If we let personability–some indefinable, prerational intuition, magnified by the Fundamental Attribution Error–bias the hiring process today, then all we will have done is replace the old-boy network, where you hired your nephew, with the new-boy network, where you hire whoever impressed you most when you shook his hand. Social progress, unless we’re careful, can merely be the means by which we replace the obviously arbitrary with the not so obviously arbitrary.”</p>
<p>More of Gladwell’s idea in this topic can be found in his best seller “Blink”.</p>
<p>BTW, in this internet age, it is not difficult to track what a particular tech person is doing. Those who are interested may look up Nolan Myers to see from hindsight whether he turns out to be as successful as predicted from the interviews in the article.</p>
<p>The primary goal of the admissions process should not be to determine who has a high IQ or not, but rather to determine who has the necessary academic background and aptitudes to pursue a 4-year bachelor’s degree successfully. Note that those two things are not necessarily identical: a person may be extremely intelligent (i.e. have a high natural IQ) and yet be unprepared for college studies because, for a series of reason (including ethnic or socioeconomic background), he/she did not have access to the necessary formal education that is required of a college applicant .</p>
<p>Likewise, standardized tests are not designed to measure intelligence directly (** they are not IQ tests! **). Tests like SAT-IIs and AP exams measure instead specific knowledge/academic background in select subjects whereas reasoning tests like the SAT properly measure general verbal and quantitative abilities acquired throughout one’s school career. </p>
<p>SATs are valid as predictors of academic success in college to the extent that they successfully test subject-specific knowledge and or reasoning skills that are required for college studies. From the point of view of a college adcom, it should be really irrelevant whether the knowledge or skills shown in a standardized test were acquired through individual study, private tutoring, or coaching, provided that they are convinced the student in question does indeed possess those skills/knowledge, which is what really matters. </p>
<p>I guess one could claim that HS transcripts alone, including grades and a list of courses taken, should be enough for an adcom to assess one’s academic background and level of preparation to enter college. Although that would be true in an ideal world, it doesn’t work in the US because of the lack of uniform teaching and grading standards in different High Schools across the country. If the US had uniform secondary school qualifications based on external examinations (like A-levels in England, Abitur in Germany or the Bac in France), then I guess colleges could simply phase out standardized tests like the SAT’s. Since that is not the case though (and won’t be the case in the foreseeable future), I’m afraid SAT’s and similar standardized tests are here to stay for a long time.</p>
<p>Shaw/Stanford, considering using alumni interviews as part of application process (recruitment, too.)</p>
<p>Page 8 at the following link:</p>
<p><a href=“http://facultysenate.stanford.edu/2005_2006/reports/dean_shaw_4_20_06.pd[/url]”>http://facultysenate.stanford.edu/2005_2006/reports/dean_shaw_4_20_06.pd</a></p>
<p>It says Page Not Found.
:(.</p>
<p>Use “pdf”, not “pd”, at the end of the URL.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I got it by adding the letter ‘f’ that was inadvertently left off the link in the post just above. Using Google to search “Dean Richard Shaw Stanford Faculty Senate” (just those words all in the search box, not specified as a phrase) will also turn up the minutes of the faculty senate meeting associated with that document.</p>
<p>Shaw has hit the ground running with his interview plans. He seems to be quite the booster for interviews in the selection process. I’m sure Stanford knew this when he was hired.</p>
<p>RE: Post #886.
Try this link, P. 8.</p>
<p>facultysenate.stanford.edu/2005<em>2006/reports/dean</em>shaw<em>4</em>20_06.pdf</p>
<p>One more data point.
My daughter’s interview with an alum for her application to her first choice college was easily her poorest experience. The interviewer has been doing this for 20 years. The interviewer repeatedly passed up opportunities to let my daughter elaborate on some interesting activities and homed in instead on possible weaknesses. Not a positive word was said about anything, except the subject university. The experience was a jolt.
My daughter was accepted and started classes yesterday. This is at a very selective university.
In trying to understand admissions interviews, I think of job interviews I’ve had. Sometimes they clicked, sometimes they didn’t. Sometimes they “got” me, sometimes they didn’t. I’m always me, the interviewer is the one who’s different.</p>
<p>Yeah - I think the interview idea is a bad one in general. Not like the SAT or even the application essays where the conditions are somewhat controlled. Every interviewer will be different. I would hope that schools who put great weight into the interview will force to interviewer into a very structured format, at least. Ideally, there would be more than one interviewer present. But reading between the lines, if we see a shift to more emphasis on the interview it may just be a sign that selective schools are too overwhelmed with amply qualified applicants and are seeking a means to place the burden of decision making elsewhere. Who can blame them?</p>
<p>Let’s approach this another, maybe less threatening , way. </p>
<p>Interviews whether with an adcom, or with an alumni interviewer at a school that considers alumni interviews, are an “opportunity to impress”. I could even say “an opportunity to convince” or “an opportunity to make the interviewer your champion” because that is what has happened in several cases here on CC and in my own experience. </p>
<p>You can be as dismissive as you want to be about interviews but it would be unwise to discount the effectiveness of a champion that pushes for your kid in a committee meeting. Very unwise indeed.</p>
<p>Maybe some of y’all don’t understand how the alumni interviewer process works at Yale for a kid from Texas. The Texas kids in our location have 1 alumni interviewer. They have 1 admissions rep. That interviewer (and his abilities) is well known to that rep. They speak on the phone. They e-mail each other. They are in contact. They commiserate. The adcom has a history with this interviewer and there is some level of trust. His views are considered by the adcom along with all other available data. Every once in a blue moon that interviewer finds a kid for whom they are willing to lie down in front of a train . For whom they are willing to mount an aggressive campaign. Well, in that case the adcom takes special notice of that kid. It’s really as simple as that. To deny that it happens is to ignore human nature. The admissions rep doesn’t abdicate her authority to the interviewer but instead she becomes the champion in the committee meeting because she becomes convinced by all available data the interviewer is correct. We have someone special here. Edit: They are not machines as much as some of you would like them to be. </p>
<p>The same thing happens with an adcom. If you are that kid or have that kid that gets the adcom’s blood rolling in a face to face meeting (whether it is called evaluative or called an interview at all is not important ) , then they will be your champion and they will fight for you. (BTW. It also happens in scholarship committees.)</p>
<p>Take advantage of every opportunity to impress. Take advantage of every opportunity to make them your champion.</p>
<p>Edit: Every contact you have with the school is evaluative IMO. Especially when it is with the adcom assigned to your territory. Don’t make the mistake of thinking some contacts with the adcom are and some aren’t. ;)</p>
<p>Curm:</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with your take. It’s always good to have an advocate or two, or three…</p>
<p>Didn’t mean to suggest I’m against interviews. Actually, I (and my kids) tend to interview quite well and I think it’s very reasonable for colleges to want to have some notion of the applicant in the flesh. I just sensed there was a movement toward increasing importance of interviews. That would make me nervous and I think my prior post explains why. Actually, even if that would happen I’d still probably be onboard with greater emphasis on interviews so long as the colleges put the resources into the process to optimize it’s value (i.e., multiple interviewers present, some structure to the questions, etc.). I would even go so far as to inject a bit of academic depth to the interview process. It would be wonderful if schools could manage to provide interview opportunities to applicants that gave them a chance to truly demonstrate their knowledge. Maybe that already goes on. If so, then just ignore me folks. And despite the impression I seem to have given, I am not worshipful of the SAT. My kids haven’t even taken it yet!</p>
<p>My son interviewed on campus at Yale and had an alumni interview locally. His on campus interview was very rewarding; he clicked with the interviewer and they were so engrossed in conversation that they went way over the alloted timeslot. He then spent an overnight in a suite with maybe 5 students. He was so impressed with how “brilliant” and friendly everyone was. Most of the kids spoke several languages (one spoke 5 or 6 fluently) and all were passionate about their courses. Only one was the stereotypical “rich” kid. THis experience put Yale clearly ahead of all other schools. His local interview reinforced his decision to apply SCEA. If he had been accepted early, I don’t believe he would have applied elsewhere. In the end, he selected another school’s combined med pgm over Yale, but it was tough to walk away from Yale. Interviews can be beneficial for lots of reasons.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity (andyeswork-avoidance), I checked the outcomes for some of the top scorers in the college class of 2011 who posted Stats Profiles on this site. The students listed first have 800/800/800 in their profiles. The students in the second set listed scores close to that. </p>
<p>Disclaimer: These data are more-or-less accurately transcribed from the Stats Profiles, but there may be a few errors in my transcription. </p>
<p>A = accepted
D = deferred
W = waitlisted
R = rejected
? = applied/pending
– = didnt apply, or didnt list that outcome</p>
<p>C is Caltech.</p>
<p>H/Y/P/S/M/C</p>
<p>A/A/A/A/A/A
W/W/R/–/–/–
–/–/R/R/A/–
A/A/–/–/A/–
A/–/–/–/–/–
D/–/–/–/–/–
A/W/A/W/–/–
W/D/R/W/–/–
A/–/–/A/–/–
–/A/–/W/–/–
–/–/–/–/R/–
A/A/A/A/–/–
A/W/–/A/–/–</p>
<p>In order, those students were:
alittlebit
eventer 31590
ever<em>after
foo
Gallo</em>Palatino
imsilly
infamousx
MallomarCookie
oopsnevermind
oriole1115
Shaetan
turkeylips73
whylion</p>
<p>R/A/A/A/R/A<br>
–/–/–/R/R/–<br>
–/–/A/A/A/–<br>
–/–/–/–/–/A<br>
–/–/W/A/R/–<br>
–/–/–/A/–/–<br>
A/A/A/?/–/–<br>
–/–/–/R/–/–<br>
–/A/–/A/–/–<br>
–/R/–/R/W/A<br>
A/W/R/R/–/-- </p>
<p>In order, those students were:
(800/800/790) bananaman
(800/800/790) test
(800/790/800) ashantii
(800/790/800) fizix and fizix2
(800/790/800) mynameisntneo
(800/800/780) lkar2011
(800/800/780) subrosianspider
(800/780/800) CaptainZ
(800/800/740) SoccerDrJ
(800/800/720) xiao_long
(800/800/710) CometxTail </p>
<p>Outcomes by university, listed as the number A/D/W/R/?/–</p>
<p>H 9/1/2/1/0/11
Y 7/1/4/1/0/11
P 6/0/1/4/0/13
S 9/0/3/5/1/6
M 4/0/1/4/0/15
C 4/0/0/0/0/20</p>
<p>Other outcomes: lkar2011 W at Brown
ashantii R at Brown, W at Washington Univ. in St. Louis</p>
<p>Comments:</p>
<p>Quite a few of the top scorers who posted had mixed outcomes. The quality of their supplements to the Common App and/or distinct applications might have varied; but the admissions representatives reactions to applications of similar quality might also have varied, and to the extent that happened, luck would have influenced the outcomes. </p>
<p>For top scorers who posted their stats on CC, the difference in the A/R ratio at H and C on the one hand vs. P, S, and M on the other could be a fluke of small numbers, but its interesting. I believe that the C outcomes reflect self-selection by the applicants.</p>
<p>The sample is obviously biased.</p>
<p>Excellent dig, QuantMech. I think you may be on to something about Harvard and Cal Tech even if the numbers are small.
Back on interviews as a way to be denied admission. The two books by former elite college admissions officers that were the most candid, IMO, were Michele Hernandez (Dartmouth) and Rachel Toor (Duke).
Hernandez left the impression that they were of no importance, and if I remember right, Toor’s comment was that the alums always seemed to be the most excited about the weakest candidates who had no chance.
I guess belief or disbelief in interviews as a dinging factor is like belief in religion. I’m a non-believer.</p>