[Mick]

I think it is generally true that alumni interviews are not considered by admission officers for highly selective schools unless they are at great variance with the rest of the application, in which case they raise questions. They are basically used to increase yield by allowing applicants to interact with alums who have great loyalty to the institution. A friend of mine stopped interviewing for a different highly selective school because almost no one he interviewed was accepted, and the few who did were his least favorite applicants as people. It is truly an unproductive use of time unless one just enjoys getting to meet some impressive high school seniors.

As one admission officer once said (I forgot where), each year we get 10,000 applicants who we would be happy to admit, and we could admit any of the 5 subgroups of 2,000 and get the same great student body.

I don't understand why Stanford is aiming to get the lowest acceptance rate, if it is. What benefit is there to that?

Bragging rights.

[Mick]

I think it is generally true that alumni interviews are not considered by admission officers for highly selective schools unless they are at great variance with the rest of the application, in which case they raise questions. They are basically used to increase yield by allowing applicants to interact with alums who have great loyalty to the institution. A friend of mine stopped interviewing for a different highly selective school because almost no one he interviewed was accepted, and the few who did were his least favorite applicants as people. It is truly an unproductive use of time unless one just enjoys getting to meet some impressive high school seniors.

As one admission officer once said (I forgot where), each year we get 10,000 applicants who we would be happy to admit, and we could admit any of the 5 subgroups of 2,000 and get the same great student body.

I don't understand why Stanford is aiming to get the lowest acceptance rate, if it is. What benefit is there to that?

Bragging rights.