<p>Some of the topics posed above are actually illegal to bring up in job interviews* because they could easily be used to violate EEOC employment policies according to friends who work in employment law. </p>
<p>Not to mention irrelevant as the interview should be about and focused the individual applicant him/herself. He/she’s the one applying, not the parents. </p>
<ul>
<li>E.g.: Religion, marital status, whether one wants/plans to have a child(ren) or number of children, sexual orientation, etc.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>I was told that there is something called “panel interview” in which several applicants were interviewed by a group of interviewers, in the undergraduate-to-graduate school application cycle. It’s likely more grueling. This is because, unlike the college application interview which typically does not count in most cases, that interview does count a lot (often more than the stats – this is where being well-rounded and socially adept, and even having charisma really help. So the college students really should sometimes get out of the classroom, library and research lab to “do something” in college years to grow as a person.)</p>
<p>'Wifey came. Wifey grilled my student on her college list. ( ! ) My student was not happy, nor am I. Initially, the student was fine with the prior announcement of the female presence, but later said it was quite distracting to have someone there completely irrelevant to the college but part of the process and intruding into it. Plus, my student had only 30 minutes to make her impression."</p>
<p>If the student is afraid to report and hurt her chances, why not wait until after acceptances?</p>
<p>BTW, after DS had been admitted to that college, the said interviewer actually wrote him an email to congratulate him. I believe he wrote that he had thought DS would be an applicant that his alma mater might admit even during the interview - based on his class rank, SAT 1 and 2, and ECs. But DS felt so uncomfortable about that interview experience that he decided not to write back a “thank you” email as he should do. He could be quite stubborn sometimes. We decided not to intervene and let him decide whatever he wanted to do.</p>
<p>In retrospect, I think it was both the admission officer responsible for our state/area and DS’s high school counselor who “helped” most in the application process. Somehow DS’s counselor knew that DS applied to that college and few other comparable colleges and it is likely that she told the admission officer (when he visited the high school) that this top student from this high school is very much interested in getting into this college. She “bat” for him even though he had never asked her this favor. I guess that the counselor likes to talk about a student in a favorable way when she thinks he could possibly make it based on her past experience. (Several state-level-competition ECs, and all other credentials.)</p>
<p>For some strange reason, the admission officer came to the high school at a wrong time due to miscommunication. The counselor could not arrange an info session at that moment when he was there. She needed to schedule another time. Since he was already at school, she sent a person to ask DS to come out of the classroom to meet him. So DS was actually interviewed one on one by the admission officer. Also, I heard they happened to have some common interest so it was a pleasant talk between them. It was his lucky day, purely due to a dumb luck. We still did not know how the counselor would know he applied to this college though (This is because there are so many students per graduating class at this public high school.)</p>
<p>If the interviewer went a long way for the interview, wife could be along to go out afterward. But it does seem odd she’d participate so much. However it probably is not a big factor. From years of reading CC, it seems that the alumni interview process is more about exchanging info than influencing admission selection. </p>
<p>again, with regard to two facts:
(1) the student in question is not related to me! (I got a PM with that misimpression)</p>
<p>(2) it doesn’t matter that any particular person, “reading CC,” has come to the unofficial conclusion that “the interview is not a big factor.” CC does not represent the university’s policy unless a post is from one of those reps authorized to say so directly.</p>
<p>(3) and even if “everyone just knows” that the interview is supposedly oh-so-meaningless, (a) STUDENTS DON’T THINK SO, and since they don’t think so, but instead believe that they DO mean something, a casual, dismissive, or sloppy attitude (or behavior) on the part of the interviewer is unkind to the student. Period. The student’s perspective and expectations are not what an adult’s are. Why is that so hard to understand? </p>
<p>(4) FInally, if correctly or incorrectly, the interviewer believes or knows the interview to be a thorough and meaningless charade in terms of outcomes, why would such a person volunteer to be such a hypocrite?</p>
<p>If they’re “meaningless” or “count for nothing,” or exist for reasons completely different from college admissions, then (a) the universities who interview should disclose that fact, and (b) students should refuse to participate in a charade which “doesn’t mean anything.”</p>
<p>In any case, some of the arguments and statements on this thread do not hang logically together. It seems to me that if it’s all for completely different purposes than college admissions, and have no value for an individual applicant, then each such U’s, knowing this, would handle “the opportunity for alums to get involved” in a different milieu, such as local <em>group</em> receptions for applicants + alums.</p>
<p>When a student is asked to interview with an alumni who does this sort of thing for a school, there is a process that the school undergoes to vet that person. Not his wife, not his best friend, son, or someone else. I doubt the college is going to accept that an interviewer is having someone else in on the process. except in some unusual case where,say a sign language interpreter, or health aid has to be present due to a some condition that the interviewer has that necessitates that. This is not the case here.</p>
<p>My opinion is that this is inappropriate and should be reported to the college. If they deem this is just fine to them, there is not much one can do, other than bring it up to another level by bringing it up in the school paper or admissions forum, outing the college by name. How much trouble and time one wants to take with that is an individual thing. BUt for now, I believe the college is unware of this happening and someone should let them know.</p>
<p><a href=“2”>quote</a> it doesn’t matter that any particular person, “reading CC,” has come to the unofficial conclusion that “the interview is not a big factor.” CC does not represent the university’s policy unless a post is from one of those reps authorized to say so directly.
[/quote]
Interviews in general can’t be a big factor because most schools do not have enough resource to interview everyone. We also have a lot of posters on CC who interview for their alma mater, and they have confirmed interviews do not count that much.<br>
Schools which require interviews will often state it on their admission site:</p>
<p>Cornell Hotel school interviews all applicants, those interview do count and applicants are informed.
<p>The schools themselves, and alums who do the interviews say that the interview is not a big factor. This is because not everyone will even have an interview (it’s not required, and it depends on availability of a local alum volunteer) and because it’s alums, not trained admissions employees, who are doing the interviews. That doesn’t mean it’s a “charade”. It’s helpful for the student to be able to learn more about the school from an alum. </p>
<p>My DH was an interviewer for a few years. Not only was he given material to review, he did go to a day’s training that involved a lot of rules that the school has for its interviewers in terms of appropriate questions, requested question, and also behaviour and topics that were off limits. More importantly, the interview is a two way street where the student can ask the alum questions about experiences at the school, being an alum of that school that are not something even a spouse can answer. It does depend upon the school as to how well the alums are vet, but in DH’s case, they did want a particular set of criteria, in terms of area of study that he underwent, in his case, his age in that he was a young interviewer. The candidates were so matched so that he was someone that could best answer any questions they may have.</p>
<p>Some schools, and we don’t know if this one is such, do count the interview evaluatively. Cornell’s School is one and MIT out and out says so as well. </p>
<p>But more importantly, by sticking an additional person in the mix, it does change the type of interview and the climate, IMO. IF this is something a school feels is fine, that’s one thing, but if that is not what they want happening, it’s a whole other. I would report it to the school, and they can make their own determination as to whether or not they want or even permit third parties in at the interview. </p>
<p>Call your own alma mater in admissions and outright ask if they feel this is appropriate. I happen to think it is not. But it’s up to the school. </p>
<p>Epiphany, I absolutely agree with you and think that that interviewer should be reported. The only issue in my mind is whether to do it now or to wait until the admissions process is complete. It’s irrelevant whether the interview holds any weight. However, I agree with others that I don’t think that it’s a big factor, and that’s what I would tell the student to reassure her at this point. </p>
<p>First, while most alum interviews are not a big factor, that is not necessarily the case with all colleges. It isn’t the case with Periwinkle’s school per his/her account and it isn’t the case with a friend who has been doing alum interviews for an elite college for years as her college have confirmed with her that her assessments of certain students have tipped borderline cases into acceptances and candidates with strong stats/resume with exhibited poor attitudes/ethical lapses* into being rejected. </p>
<p>Secondly, even if this was the main purpose of the alum interview, it seems the non-affiliated spouse’s intrusive involvement had a serious detrimental effect in fulfilling that end considering it sucked time away from what should have been direct interaction between the alum interviewer and the applicant. </p>
<p>This seems to be the important point missed by some who seem to minimize the involvement and negative impact of the non-affiliated spouse in this particular case. </p>
<ul>
<li>E.g. Being proud of slacking off on academics in HS and feeling some classes weren’t worth taking because they were “useless”. Not a good idea to do it in front of someone who embodies the college’s preference for “renaissance students” who respect all academic fields.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>“More importantly, the interview is a two way street where the student can ask the alum questions about experiences at the school, being an alum of that school that are not something even a spouse can answer.” Did this student say that the wife was answering questions about the school that should have been answered by an alum? Was the alum gagged? All we heard is that she asked about the student’s college list. I’m not sure if that’s a question which should be asked, but if it is an ok question, what does it matter who asked it? </p>
<p>Personally, I do think it’s a little odd that the wife attends the interviews, but I think a lot of unfounded conclusions and accusations are being made here. And if it’s so clearly something objectionable, then why advise the student to wait to complain, wouldn’t the college look favorably on someone who reported a person who has made an "unprofessional’ “charade” of their process?</p>
<p>I don’t know about “matched”. None of my daughter’s interviewers have been “matched” to her interests. She tried to get a “matched” interviewer for one school where she was particularly interested in that, but, no luck. Having a “matched” interviewer changes the type of interview. Having an older or younger interviewer also changes the type of interview and climate. You’re all acting as though these interviews are some kind of uniform experience for everyone else and this kid got something different and because it was different it had to be worse. </p>
<p>I don’t know, but if the spouse with no affiliation with the college concerned “grills the interviewee about his/her list of colleges”, said spouse IS being intrusive and overinvolved in what should have been strictly between the alum interviewer and the applicant. </p>
<p>IMO, unless the spouse is an alum her/himself, s(he) shouldn’t have been actively involved in the interview process. </p>
<p>I could be wrong, but I thought Cornell interviews done by ADCOMS were considered (these are done for certain Programs within Cornell), but NOT alumni interviews. Hopefully someone from Cornell will clarify. Reason for this…Cornell actually has some “quality control” with adcoms, but not with alums.</p>
<p>IMO the parent is making way too much of this. I would guess that the wife was brought along to make the female student feel more comfortable. (Just like male doctors will have a female nurse/assistant in the room when examining a female patient.) “Grilled the applicant about college list?”-- Does “grilled” simply mean “asked” (some applications ask what other colleges the student is applying to . . .and this could be a common/small-talk question asked of any high school senior) or does it mean the student was repeatedly pressured to reveal her list after she said she’d rather not say? Maybe the interviewer thought his wife would help keep the conversation going–maybe HE felt awkward with a young female student. I doubt the presence of a wife–whether or not she participated in the conversation–would have any effect on the student’s chances. (I don’t think there is much to being an interviewer–especially if you are in an area with few alums–H got called to do this, and it sounded like they were desperate for anyone to sign up. Also, I wouldn’t think that a wife would know nothing about her husband’s college experiences. Even if she didn’t attend the same college, I’d bet she knows quite a lot. Much, much more than any random, “unaffiliated” person, in any case )</p>
<p>Doesn’t seem to have worked considering OP posted the folllowing:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If he has such issues with maintaining basic conversation in an interview or felt awkward with certain genders, it may have been better for himself and interviewee here if he declined becoming an alum interviewer until he resolves them first. </p>
<p>And in this case, it wasn’t as if he had no choice. Thus, onus is on the alum interviewer and his spouse for the abysmal way that interview turned out. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not only about not knowing about the institution. It’s the fact interviews…including alum interviews are usually and IMO…should only be between the interviewer affiliated with the institution and the interviewee. </p>
<p>That’s what the interviewee usually agreed to when this was arranged through the college’s adcoms. It’s highly irregular that third parties…especially those with no affiliation with the college concerned would actively participate in the interview process itself. </p>