= Premium Content

  • Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

The Lament of the Disappointed Alumni Interviewer

March 30, 2011, 3:08 pm

By Eric Hoover

If you’re allergic to the Ivy League, then you really shouldn’t read this intriguing article published by Bloomberg today. After all, it includes quotes from disgruntled alumni interviewers at Ivy League institutions.

Disgruntled? Yes, that’s right. Some alumni don’t like that few of the students they interview end up getting acceptances. In the article, an alumnus of the University of Pennsylvania laments that his alma mater denied all but two or three of more than 50 applicants he’s interviewed over the last decade: “Is it worth it to interview if I’m not going to have any influence on the students getting in?”

Whatever you might think of his understanding of the words “any” or “influence,” he raises an interesting question. Will  ongoing application inflation (so often touted in press releases) disillusion the very alumni that some admissions offices rely on? Or is this a non-issue for all but a handful of graduates with a roaring case of self-importance?

“I’ve always thought it was an ambassador-type role,” a graduate of Princeton University says in the Bloomberg story. “That being said, what great purpose is being an ambassador to 20,000 people who are not going to get in?”

While you’re pondering that, you might want to check out an article my colleague Beckie Supiano and I wrote last year about the enduring mystery of the admissions interview…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • mark_r_harris

    That article describes my experiences as an alumni interviewer for Yale University all too well. I gave up volunteering my time over the same frustrations.

  • 22072036

    I was an alumni interviewer for Georgetown University for years. The number of candidates I rated very highly who did or did not get in was about even, which did not surprise me given the competitiveness and huge numbers of applicants. What did surprise me were the instances where I rated someone low (explaining my rationale in detail) but yet that person was still offered a spot. That was when I felt my imput was not given much weight.

  • Brian Abel Ragen

    While I wonder why the applicants I rate most highly don’t get in, something else bothers me about alumni interviewing. I have been doing it for decades now, and somewhere along the line the applicants all turned pro. They arrive with C.V’s longer than my own–and sometimes with supporting documents. Everyone has been in elite summer programs and no one has failed to head at least one organization in high school. They all write thank-you notes after the interview.

    If they weren’t mostly still sweet kids, all this would make me want to gag. All I want is for the applicant to take the interview seriously enough to wear grown up clothes and talk about what they’re interested in. A polite, “Very good to meet you” on the way out is better than a “I’ve been trained to be a suck-up” note in the mail.

    In other words, I think applicants should be amateurs, not over-coached professionals who sometimes have been groomed by hired coaches or parents doing the same thing with a how-to book. (For an example of the latter, see _Getting Into College with Julia Ross_; you can find the former with a Google search–but don’t expect to find the fees posted.)

  • sand6432

    In the Dallas area we have almost 80 Princeton alumni interviewing over 350 applicants. I have been doing interviews for nearly two decades, first in State College, PA (Penn State), and now here, I usually interview three or four applicants each year. Only one (a valedictorian at State College High School) was admitted, but I’m not frustrated or annoyed. I feel that I am providing a useful service both to the University and to the students applying, and I benefit by getting to know some really outstanding young people from the area who will likely be successful wherever they go to college and whatever career they pursue later. The value to the Admissions Office, I understand, is in providing “texture,” as one college admissions official quoted in your earlier article put it. And it can make a difference in close cases (Stanford’s admissions officer quotes 10% of the 4,000 cases). So I am happy to continue participating. But I do worry about the increase in the number of applications owing to the adoption of the Common Application; I fear that some students are applying now almost pro forma, and i have had some not even show up for interviews, which never happened in earlier times. I also offer a word of caution to alumni interviewing recruited athletes: do not buy anything for them (like coffee at a Starbucks), or you may well be in violation of NCAA recruiting guidelines.—Sandy Thatcher

  • eryx1959

    I lament that the Chronicle doesn’t edit even short articles: “In the article, an alumnus if the University of Pennsylvania laments”

  • erichoover

    We do edit short articles, eryx1959. Alas, sometimes we make mistakes. I lament the typo.

    Eric Hoover

  • AbdulKareemaWheat

    Which comes first: academic freedom or equality of the sexes?

  • http://nosacredc0w.wordpress.com NoSacredCow

    Which came first the chicken or the egg?
    The waiter brought the egg first to my table so I have to say egg.

  • http://nosacredc0w.wordpress.com NoSacredCow

    The biggest setback to western liberal education is religion. Even here in the US. (Certain factions are trying to create a theocracy here)
    Western education leads to questioning which chips away at the “pillars of faith” and some folks just aren’t about to stand for it. There is too much control at stake for them to give up the power. (and the money)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_34HHCFOPYPOWVPZC54ZIJ2R6CA the loonie

    1. ‘cultural imperialism’ long ago made way for ‘corporatist rationalization.’ (what credentials does this willoughby have?). thinking critically, not just in the gulf, means fitting what you have to say into a flow-chart.
    2. ghabra’s comments about censorship are unhelpful and meretricious: instructors teach whatever they like, once they gain students’ trust and attention. this is also true everywhere else.

  • http://www.facebook.com/condottiero Guillermo Pineda

    Interesting article. It would be interesting to find out how many Western teachers are right now working in Middle Eastern Universities and how have they intertwined in the society.

  • http://www.facebook.com/condottiero Guillermo Pineda

    I disagree with this being a “chicken or egg question”. Surely, what comes first is respect for individual rights. As such, if women or men are discriminated amongst them by law & tradition there won’t be any academic freedom. Academic freedom is a tiny little part of a wider idea: individual freedom.

  • brundal

    Oh, you BET there are troubling matters. Check out the blog “Academics in the Desert” at http://expatacademic.wordpress.com.
    (No, I am not the blogger)
    On the other hand, no one who lives/works/thinks over here expects change overnight. Comparisons to the West yield despair, but comparisons to other states in the area can sometimes be … almost … well, approaching encouraging.

  • http://nosacredc0w.wordpress.com NoSacredCow

    Guillermo. You are a literalist aren’t you? I forgot to add a arcasm emoticon. ;p

  • medendo

    Dear sacred cow,

    Your opinion seems a bit categorical to me. Every day prominent academics with strong faith commitments carry out excellent scientific inquiry. The problem is not religion per se, but a form of religion that abides no questioning. Every human being works within a “faith system,” i.e., a cognitive macro-paradigm that both informs and organizes her or his world. Macro-paradigms are ultimately too complex to be provable, and thus require a “faith” commitment, but should always be open to evidence and revision. Clearly your macro-paradigm has created an irrational bias against practitioners of religion. You might want to consider the much evidence to the contrary and revise your religious bigotry against religion.

  • http://nosacredc0w.wordpress.com NoSacredCow

    actually it’s NoSacredCow.

    and no. It isn’t an irrational bias. It’s quite rational and the result of 50 years of personal observation of hypocrisy and power grabs.

    Religion solves absolutely nothing. (let’s narrow it down by starting with the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam if it was too broad a category for you.)
    Religion exist on the backs of the poor and the helpless. It does nothing to solve these problems and in fact prolongs them because without the poor and the helpless these religions would cease to exist.

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.