<p>I am a Canadian applying to Harvard.I got invited for an alumni interview, but does everyone applying get one?</p>
<p>I am a Canadian student, and I got invited for an alumni interview. But actually, I did not send my SAT score and TOFEl score(a language test, because I am not a native speaker for English). Therefore I really want to know what is the meaning of the Harvard Interview, is that means I still being “considered” or they just give the opportunity for every applicant who is Canadian student?</p>
<p>They just look whether or not there is an interviewer available in your general area. If you have not send those scores yet, you must do so as quickly as possible. Without those scores, your application won’t be considered, whether you’ve had an interview or not. I believe they are still assembling all pieces of information; that’s probably why you haven’t received an email saying pieces of your application were missing yet. The interviews, however, are arranged as quickly as possible, without the Admissions Office knowing whether or not they have received the entire application.</p>
<p>They don’t draw lots. But you can imagine an interview coordinator given 75 applicants on a list. He has 15 interviewers who can do four each. That’s sixty. I’d just pull the first sixty off of my list. With the remaining ones, I’d try to cajole a few more interviews – but I’m a realist as well. Some may very well not ever be interviewed. That’s the random portion of it.</p>
<p>Some subcommittees give interviews to the best candidates. It’s difficult for one to determine externally which follow this practice. Some students have been accepted without interviews, but very few… around 5%-8% of the class. All interviews are made in an effort to match the interviewer with the interviewee by common interests (although some don’t, especially in few interviewer areas such as international). Their FAQ website tells that they make every effort to interview everyone (which they do), and that no interview will not hurt a candidate (but not help them either).</p>
<p>Internationals are generally only given interviews if they are high potential candidates, and often times no international interview is viewed as a rejection. On the other hand, Canada isn’t like the middle east or Russia… take it as a good thing and do well at your interview! Just please practice if you have never interviewed before - ask friends and teachers if you don’t have any interviews between now and then. I hope this insight is useful to you… Good luck!</p>
<p>
I can assure you this is NOT how any of the subcommittees operate in that situation. What are your intentions in leading the student to believe interviews are largely random? </p>
<p>Gordon: I speak out of experience w/a peer school. I am misinformed and learned a lot from your post as I’m not a H interviewer. Please ignore my post #5.</p>
<p>GordonTheGekko et al.,
While I believe the Harvard admissions FAQ will answer best the Canadian candidate’s question regarding interviews, what’s with Harvard simply listing all academic and non academic areas (C-7) for admission as being weighted the same, as “Considered” in their common data set?</p>
<p>Nothing is differentiated other than “class rank” which is checked as being “not considered”, which is understandable given that not all schools rank students.</p>
<p>From the common data set, one could assume that the interview is considered the same as the academic rigor of a student’s schedule.</p>
<p>Other Ivies provide more differentiation of academic and non academic criteria, such as character, talent, instead of simply listing all as “considered.” Harvard also leaves out wait-list data.</p>
<p>Common data sets are generally helpful and clear with respect to academic and non academic areas being considered for admission, except for Harvard’s.</p>
<p>Is this about propagating a mystery where data should at least approximate and reflect actual outcomes and their basis?</p>
<p>FWIW, Harvard does not release detailed admission stats, at least not in recent years. I don’t know specifically why the office does this. </p>
<p>If you’d like to see detailed statistics, check out Stanford’s - they have a similar class size and acceptance rate to Harvard, so it can give you a rough idea. I’m certain Stanford has published this at least once in recent years because I recall seeing it some time back. (Btw, does VC = that forbidden silicon valley word?)</p>
<p>GordonTheGekko,
I have seen the common data sets for Stanford and all of the Ivies. Again, looking in comparison, most Ivies, Stanford and MIT differentiate the value that each puts on academic and non academic areas (C-7) for freshman applicants. Most note that rigor, GPA, class rank, standardized testing are noted as being very important, as well as character and talent. ECs are not seen as very important, rather generally ranked as important, and the interview is noted as being “considered”. Harvard simply rosters all of the categories as “considered.” It just seems that the agreed upon provision of common data sets are not being completed in earnest by Harvard (Office of the Provost) administration in as detailed a way as the other Ivies. My brother was a diabetes researcher and then a member of the Harvard Medical School faculty years ago. He had some skepticism about Harvard . . . Crimson just seems less forthcoming than other Ivies. The VC is an abbreviation from Robert’s Rules, aka a type of presiding officer. Thanks for the heads up on the negative connotation - that is not intended.
Mr. VC</p>
<p>No worries about the connotation, I was just joking/sarcastic.</p>
<p>I would think the reason why the admission office does not release more detailed statistics or methods is primarily because they want to keep anything correlated with their method as private as possible. Outside of the FAQ sheets, Dean interviews and on-campus info sessions, there isn’t allot of information they release publicly. So, they don’t care to release any kind of data sheet and end up just checking the “considered” option for each point (which is true - everything is considered!).</p>
<p>While I can’t say Harvard is the #1 most “holistic” school in the country because I’m not familiar on the details with every college, it certainly qualifies as very holistic. This is evident in the (ironically) objective statistical data from year to year - because becoming a Harvard student is (but for maybe 10-100 acceptances) first and foremost on subjectives (teacher testimonials, etc), objective data varies from year to year, sometimes wildly. Another example is how, at least in my opinion, it’s possible (but nonetheless unlikely!) for a candidate to be rejected at UMass (due to objectives) yet accepted to Harvard (due to subjectives).</p>
<p>I guess that it is prudent to stay with what works. Considered means just that . . .</p>
<p>I agree with you with respect to their strongly holistic approach, perhaps that is what is being preserved and protected. No formulae for it, its embedded. And the outcomes are integrated, perhaps driven by human potential.</p>
<p>I don’t know if someone declined by UMass would make it in, but I do know of a student who was declined by GW, who made it in.</p>
Just please practice if you have never interviewed before - ask friends and teachers if you don’t have any interviews between now and then. I hope this insight is useful to you… Good luck!</p>
</p>