<p>xiggi, LOL. Yep, there goes the kite. A good while back, I was on a motorcycle trip with 6 other folks much like us. We ended split into 4 groups going four different directions with the largest group being 2 people. We met back at the trailer in Albuquerque. LOL.</p>
<p>Xiggi…you wrote:
“As a testament to Cur’s flying kite analogy, I think that a discussion about the various approaches to a curriculum should have its own thread.”
The way conversations go, is that various topics arise and one responds to the previous comments. Just look at the Duke lacrosse thread! 
I don’t wish to use this thread to debate the merits of an open curriculum or schools such as Goddard/Hampshire which have a lot of independent studies as part of their philosophy/approach. I was responding to something NSM wrote and just reflecting that a school like that might have fit her son, not that it is a better approach. (for the record, I don’t think it is a better approach but just a different one and is one my D found to be a great fit.)I was simply responding to a post on this thread, not trying to start a new topic.</p>
<p>xiggi, not all interviews are created equal. I was referring to the true evaluative interviews done by qualified individuals–not those useless alumni ones. A good interviewer can identify such intangibles as a true love of learning and depth of understanding. My son felt that the interviews done by admissions staff at more elite schools were designed to see if the student was “for real.” For example, my son’s application showed he’s interested in political science. Hence, one interviewer asked him some very difficult questions about political process in the US. In order to answer, my S had to possess general knowledge about how govt. works, specific knowledge about a current event related to that governmental process, and then be able to provide an intelligent analysis. He didn’t get in that school, lol.</p>
<p>I hope I can respond to the post above about interviews and interviewers even though it is a “kite” off the original topic of the first post but is a natural progression in this conversation…</p>
<p>TheGFG…I realize there is GREAT variation in the effectiveness of alumni interviews. However, your take on alumni ones being “useless”, I disagree with. I am an alumni interviewer for Tufts and Northstarmom is for Harvard. We are trained on the kinds of questions to ask and what the school is looking for. We also know they want a personal picture of the student, not a regurgitation of data on the application. I agree with your statement about how a good interviewer can identify intangibles (as well as personal characteristics). I maintain that a good interviewer can also be an alum interviewer. Not every alum interviewer will be an effective one, but let’s not discount the value of some. Yes, there are inconsistancies. My alma mater tells us that they truly use our narrative interview reports and I can tell you that a lot of energy goes into them. I doubt that they play a significant factor in the decision but are merely one more piece of showing a personal side to the applicant…a little different than a recommendation by someone who knows them well but rather is a window on how they come across and what makes them tick to someone who does not know them well. For all the energy I put into my interviews and reports, I hope they are not considered useless by Tufts! :eek:</p>
<p>soozie, I’m sure your efforts are considered by Tufts and NSM’s by Harvard. In fact, I know of one instance in particular where an alum interviewer made a very concrete difference in the admissions process at Yale for one girl from Texas.
(The admission’s rep told me specifically what her interviewer did to bolster her app.)</p>
<p>Sorry sooz. You’re right, my S did have some good alumni interviews too. But many seemed designed to be personalized college information sessions or were geared toward selling the school to the student. In one case, the interviewer seemed most interested in ferreting out from my S how high his school was on my S’s list of favorites.</p>
<p>Clearly, you can’t just use an interview for admissions, just like you can’t just use any one indicator. And of course there would be the risk of unfair bias entering in. Still, I think properly conducted interviews should be given more weight.</p>
<p>And depending on the school, recommendations can be very unreliable guides.</p>
<p>This is a repost from one of my older posts.</p>
<p>I have been known to question the relative importance of interviewers, especially when self-appointed. However, it seems to vary from one college to another.</p>
<p>The numbers presented by the ASC of Yale are pretty convincing. Get a rating of 3 - like 577 interviewees got- and your admission chances stumble to 2.2%. Only 1 out of 104 survived a rating of 2 and 1 out of 43 a rating of 1. **Not a good idea to irritate the Yale interviewer. ** </p>
<p>FWIW, it also seems that the ASC at Yale seems to be heavily supported by the adcoms and not to be a loose outfit.</p>
<p>This table is in the Spring 2004 version: <a href=“http://www.yale.edu/asc/newsletter/spring_2004.pdf[/url]”>http://www.yale.edu/asc/newsletter/spring_2004.pdf</a></p>
<p>ASC interview ratings
Rating - Applicants - Admitted - Percentage admitted
9 313 83 26.5%
8 1303 259 20.0%
7 2562 405 15.8%
6 2887 307 10.6%
5 3390 248 7.3%
4 1538 45 2.9%
3 577 13 2.2%
2 104 1 1.0%
1 43 1 2.3%</p>
<p>I find the following cases -borrowed from real applicants at Yale- quite instructive as what MAY doom the applications of otherwise “perfect” candidates. After reading such examples, we may have to review our perception that the process is entirely unfair or arbitrary. While it will not change the fact that there are more qualified candidates than open spots at the Shangri-La of higher education, we have LITTLE evidence to support the notion that unsuccessful candidates were dealt with blatant unfairness or discrimination, especially when the majority if not all schools involved reached a similar negative conclusion about a candidate. All we have is idle speculation! </p>
<p>However, the 5 cases also show a range of cases: A student rated 4 was accepted, a student with 9 was rejected. Two out of five seem to have gone against the “recommendation” of the interviewer. What I found more interesting was to see the qualifications of rejected students. </p>
<p>The information was “borrowed” from a couple of the ASC newsletters. Check them out at: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.yale.edu/asc/newsletter/index.html[/url]”>http://www.yale.edu/asc/newsletter/index.html</a> </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The interviewer should not try to get the student to tell how high the college is on the student’s list. The interviewer should try to get the student to articulate why he/she wants to attend and what his/her criteria are for selecting colleges. The interview’s main thrust is to get to know the student on a personal level. A small part, but still an important one, is to also give the student a chance to ask whatever he/she wishes about the college from the alum. You’d be surprised when I ask the students if there is anything they wish to ask me since I am very familiar with the school, some have nothing to ask or just ask something very general. It is quite telling as far as their level of interest.</p>
<p>Xiggi, thanks for those examples! They confirm what I said earlier: there is so much an outsider to the process cannot know that goes so far beyond stats and ec’s. It is this state of being in the dark that leads many to the erroneous “lottery” conclusion.</p>
<p>In our school a number of years ago, there was a brilliant, top student that was known across the country as virtually #1 in his ec. Everyone thought he could write his ticket to whatever school he chose. The problem was, he also had a somewhat “full of himself” , “in your face” personal style. Well, the results, while shocking to most, may have had something to do with this last attribute: he was rejected or waitlisted by every ivy, including the one to which he applied ED.</p>
<p>Regarding the interview statistics above with respect to the numerical ratings that the interview gave relative to the rate of admission…it is difficult to draw a conclusion that a better rating by an interviewer would help one get in…because a better rating MAY be because the student already was a more attractive candidate who would get in and the interview report could just be confirming what already exists. Hard to say. </p>
<p>By the way…for Tufts, the ratings of 1-5 has a “1” (outstanding) as the highest :D.</p>
<p>I enjoyed reading the anecdotes from Yale’s admissions committee regarding the synopsis on each student and then how the interview report dovetailed. First, let me say that I am glad to see that indeed our interview reports are considered as a piece of information in the admissions process…a small piece but not always a useless piece. </p>
<p>What I read above confirms all that I know of the process. A strong interview can confirm what was seen in the rest of the application and recs. It won’t get you in but just adds to the case that can be made if it verifies what others saw. A weak interview doesn’t necessarily break an otherwise strong candidate. If there is JUST ONE negative piece on the whole pile, it would stand out as not being a consistant piece of information. Where there is some borderline, an interview that revealed no passion or excitement or something else of interest about the candidate might sway or add to the doubt pile on the fence. Also, the adcoms look to see if the interview report substantiates the opinions…and if the interview report is not well written or doesn’t come across as substantiated, it may not be taken too seriously. A report that really demonstrates and backs up the subjective parts, might be utilized to confirm the rest of the app. A poor interview, if everything else is great, likely won’t derail a candidate. But for someone in the middle, it can make a difference. </p>
<p>For those who have discounted the value or significance of interviews, they may want to think again. The interview, like essays, are a chance to show who you are as a person. Also, it is a chance to express specific interest in the college. How someone comes across at an interview reveals a little about how one might come across in a classroom discussion or as a contributor to campus life, etc. There has to be reasons to want the student at the college, more than that he/she is simply very smart. You don’t need an interview to determine that part.</p>
<p>On interviews and their relevance from our family’s point of view, my son’s interviews for US colleges were all across the board, ranging from several (evaluated) small group responses to questions posed by professors for Emory Scholars to the mostly informative, pleasant, chatty interview with the Harvard alum (who did ask him where else he applied, and when S named a few colleges, the interviewer talked about the other three schools, which either he or his spouse had attended for undergrad or grad).</p>
<p>The Oxford interview was the most challenging, with a senior tutor, grilling and dialectic about a scientific article S was given to read before the interview began. Together with ranking performance on the tests given to all applicants in a subject, and graded written work samples, I think they have a pretty sound platform from which to select the students who would tend to get the most out of their chosen course and the tutorial method.</p>
<p>A very useful approach, but wouldn’t work in the US - professor interviews for an undecided major candidate wouldn’t be that helpful (and the professors would probably rebel).</p>
<p>As shown in the Yale examples, an interview might detect any discrepancy between the real person and the persona described in a recommendation letter. Not to pick on prep schools, but a friend of mine who does alumni interviews commented that practically every prep school student is “the best and the brightest” according to the recs.</p>
<p>I’m late coming to this and didn’t read all the threads—sorry if I’m repeating.</p>
<p>Back when S graduated from hs there was an awards ceremony honoring kids who made top and high honors all 16 quarters. They were introduced to resounding applause as “the best and the brightest”. As the parent of the kid with the highest SAT in the class, who was NOT in the honored group (close but not there and didn’t really care) it just bothered me.</p>
<p>A lot of that “best and brightest” went to local schools (this was 5 yrs ago)and majored in education (please don’t flame me I know teaching is an honorable and worthwhile profession), or stayed locally and work in small local places. S is software engineer in NYC. My point: a lot of those top grades kids CANNOT do what S does, they don’t have the intelligence. </p>
<p>So my vote is standardized testing , but…wouldn’t it be nice if there was no such thing as a prep course. So i say the kid who takes the SAT scores very highly WITHOUT prep course after prep course is the smartest.</p>
<p>To echo what one poster said earlier regarding Swift…I recall S laughing out loud at Shakespeare. To me verbal intelligence is more impressive than math intelligence. Anecdotally I guess since I’m higher math and S is higher V and he’s much smarter than i.</p>
<p>Agree EQ and good old fashioned “a head for business” are as important as any indicators for at least financial success.</p>
<p>I’m obviously not a val or sal of cc, and my kids call me an illiterate moron, but, cur: WHAT THE HECK is your question or poll? </p>
<p>(I’m lost in the clouds – still hanging by the thread.)</p>
<p>blue, I have long ago given up. </p>
<p>Read 2331clk’s post, blu. That is what I’m talking about. The idea that they have that the school rewarded the wrong people, or at least failed to reward the “best” and/or “brightest” people.
It bothered them. I appreciate their honesty. The same sentiment has been expressed to me in real life and on the val thread. </p>
<p>I just wonder what tools we should use to determine the most worthy, the most academically capable, the smartest, the best, the brightest, whoever it is we are looking to reward or admit or give a scholarship. It appears 2331 doesn’t think rank is a valid criteria for “best or brightest”. Some hate standardized tests. Some hate GPA. I wanted to limit the “poll” or discussion to those three. Many people object to that. So be it. I can live with that. ;)</p>
<p>I got timed out. Sorry blu. I’ve always liked track. Who got to the finish line first. Not much discretion. Not much for a judge to consider. No place for an argument that little Johnny is a better runner even though that fellow over there just kicked his butt by 4/10ths of a second in the hundred meters (a seemingly small amount but nearly a lightyear in competitive track). </p>
<p>When you start quantifying, testing and ranking something that it is essentially qualitative in nature (like the best ball player for a particular team or the best candidate for admission at a particular school), this is where we have problems and where some feel unfairness comes in. </p>
<p>The idea of who is the “best” or “brightest” student or best candidate for admission is like the idea of who is the best basketball player for a specific team. The one who scores all the points and/or grabs all the boards may not be the “best player” . A lot of players play poor defense and will cost their team as many points as they make. A lot of players grab rebounds using another’s block out but never block out themselves. And a lot of intangibles have to be considered and those intangibles are different in the eyes of each beholder. Just like when the admissions committees are selecting the best candidates for admission and scholarships. As always , just my opinion.</p>
<p>It’s good that colleges use several different criteria.
Here is an argument in the “all of the above” vein.</p>
<p>SATs have some correlation to aptitude, although we all know the hindrances to success on SAT: class, race, gender?, LD, bad hair day.
ACT is supposed to be more of an achievement test.
Grades show success on the ground.
ECs can show interests, leadership, creativity.
Recommendations give others the chance to speak for the kid.
Interviews give the kid a chance to speak for him/herself.</p>
<p>How many of us on the backside of 40 could show our stuff with just one of these measures?
The best thing about U.S. college admissions is that kids get to plead their cases through different means.
The son of a friend in the Netherlands was sent to a high school to train to be a gardener based on one test when he was 12.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cur- the problem there lies in the words “A BETTER RUNNER”. All that proved was that in THAT PARTICULAR RACE, the winner got to the finish line first. Is that person truly “a better runner”? Did the other kid have a bad start or was he coming back from an injury? Does someone else actually have more potential? In college recruiting for track/cross country, while a lot depends on the times achieved, a lot also depends on what the college coach sees as the POTENTIAL of the runner. Has the kid been running 90 miles a week through high school and already peaked or is this a kid who has been at a low mileage program and is just now ready to make a break-through? Is little Johnny perhaps a 200 or 400 meter runner instead of a 100 meter guy? </p>
<p>So much of this analogy also applies to academic potential and “fit”. Who is truly the “better runner” OR “better student”?</p>
<p>ah, got it, thanks, Then I vote for none of the above, or two of the three – which is called the Academic Index! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>"When you start quantifying, testing and ranking something that it is essentially qualitative in nature (like the best ball player for a particular team or the best candidate for admission at a particular school), this is where we have problems and where some feel unfairness comes in. </p>
<p>The idea of who is the “best” or “brightest” student or best candidate for admission is like the idea of who is the best basketball player for a specific team. The one who scores all the points and/or grabs all the boards may not be the “best player” . A lot of players play poor defense and will cost their team as many points as they make. A lot of players grab rebounds using another’s block out but never block out themselves. And a lot of intangibles have to be considered and those intangibles are different in the eyes of each beholder. Just like when the admissions committees are selecting the best candidates for admission and scholarships. As always , just my opinion."</p>
<p>Curmudgeon, so let me get this straight. You want the people responding to your post to quantify what can’t be quantified, and then you express a slight disappointment when the posters go off on a tangent. </p>
<p>And the tangent is…many posters in their own way state you can’t quantify the unquantifiable. :)</p>
<p>I hope people like you are not grading the SAT and ACT essays. :)</p>