Just finished another skype interview and this question pop up from my head.
All these interviews basically asked about why our school, why this field, how would you fund yourself, what other colleges you have applied to.
These questions have been answered in my application forms and essays, and if not, anyone with half a brain can answer these questions with minimum preparation.
I’m not sure how these interviews would help them evaluate students?
At the end of the day, colleges want to know the same things. The “why this college” question certainly shouldn’t have a same answer every time. If it does, you haven’t been doing your research. Also, colleges want to admit people they like, and they probably want to see if you are at least likable.
They want to be sure you can put together a string of coherent sentences.
Hmmm… my best interviews are extremely engaging and we veer far and wide from a canned list of questions. Indeed the conversation flows all over the map due to the energy flowing between the student and me.
I would understand if interviews involve meeting students in person or asking professional questions. I’m just not sure what schools want from a short generic skype interview.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say the interview has very little potential for positive effect and significant potential for negative effect. Also, I feel that the main purpose is not to screen applicants, but make alumni feel like they are actively participating in selecting a new class- making them feel more connected to the college/university and therefore donating more of their time and money towards the institution.
I think it is to make sure that the applicant is at least somewhat sociable and is able to talk to people without completely breaking down.
Also, possible for international students to test their proficiency in spoken English.
Another possibility is to gather some insight on anything you wanted to say but could not fit within the essays. If the 100 word limit to the “Why School” was too constricting and you wanted to add a couple of personal anecdotes to connect with your reasoning, the interview would be an option for that.
Then you really don’t understand what the interview is about.
Of course anyone can answer the questions, they are looking to see if you fit what they want at their university. If they are “on the fence” about you, the interview helps. They look at your mannerisms, your approach to discussion/conversation, your summary, your interaction, your confirmation of factoids.
If you demonstrated any arrogance, sarcasm, or feeling that the interview was beneath you, then that will come across immediately and you won’t get any brownie points.
I think it’s to do a soft qualities assessment to suss out whether you’re the kind of person they definitely don’t want at their school-- are you irredeemably socially inept? Are you an arrogant jerk? Are you an axe murderer?
It’s not about the answers you give.
It’s the person you present yourself to be as you give those answers. That’s why it’s Skype and not email.
Realize that this is your first time applying to college. But they’ve been accepting applicants for quite some time. There’s a reason for what they do, even if you can’t see it.
Sorry my implication wasn’t clear before. Perhaps your short generic interviews, consisting of only bland questions and answers is more indicative of a mediocre interview.
Like I said, memorable interviews I’ve had stray far and wide and touch upon many subjects. The fact you’ve not had this may indicate something about your interviewing ability.
^Yes.
My D had a phone interview recently. The interviewer started by asking her basic questions from her app and essay. She said it was obvious he had them in front of him. Then they hit on a topic that just took off and she said most of the interview didn’t have anything to do with her application. She was excited and energized when she was done.
To put you at ease, I also agree that in the vast majority of cases, an interview (even a mediocre one) will have no effect.
My experience (as a 25+ year interviewer) is this: for most kids, it won’t make ANY difference. The applicants are in three groups: a) shoo-ins (recruited athletes, other “gotta haves” that, barring a felony or something, will receive an offer) – this is only a very small group (2-3%), b) the vast number who don’t get much traction past the first read. I can imagine 85%. Then there’s c) that remaining 10% or so which they need to whittle down by 3/4 — the kids in the grey area. For them, an very good interview MIGHT make a difference.
For group a) and b) who represent the vast bulk of applicants – there is no effect whatsoever.
That being said, I know of students in the “c” category for whom the alumna’s report did tip the scale in the applicant’s favor in the committee’s eyes.
I veer from @yikesyikesyikes completely cynical view of things (at least from my first hand knowledge with my school). It may hold true for some but not mine.