Overdeveloping Applicants' Pictures

PHOTOGRAPHS HAVE NEVER been part of a Harvard application. Instead, the admissions office has always relied on alumni interviews for an objective snapshot--in words--of each of the more than 12,000 students who apply to the College each year. More than 4000 veterans of the Harvard admissions process annually volunteer their services to the office, interviewing candidates in their home towns and passing on their impressions to Cambridge. In the past, the form provided for interviewers to fill out about each candidate has suggested that interviewers should only relay their general impressions about a candidate and not try to glean too much from a 45- to 60-minute conversation. "We understand that in the short span of the interview time, it is impossible to know with much certainty very much about a student..." the form explains.

But this year, the office is asking much more of its alumni allies. Instead of expecting an objective sketch which will be used to complement a candidate's folder, the office now wants a finished portrait, clearly drawn with the kind of detail that leaves almost no room for error. A revised interview form sent out this year and last asks them to write three short essays outlining a student's potential academic, extracurricular, and personal contributions to Harvard. Even a professional artist cannot be expected to finish a portrait after only an hour sitting. If he wants to do a complete job, the first session would be spent sketching what he later intends to fill in after many more sittings. And the admissions office is not necessarily dealing with professional interviewers. The alumni interview fulfills several functions. It is sometimes the only contact a potential student has with a representative of Harvard: many applicants live too far away or do not have enough money to come to Harvard for an admissions interview, let alone a tour of the campus. The alumni interview, quite correctly, allows interested students to ask questions of their hosts, not merely be subjected to an intensive interview. The new form with the emphasis it implies, would necessitate the latter.

Whereas the old form focused more on alumni's immediate impressions of a student's life at high school, the new form places much more emphasis on predicting how well the student will do at Harvard. The old form asked alumni to evaluate students' academic achievement, extracurricular and/or athletic contribution, and personal qualities on a list from one to six (one being truly outstanding, six being unrecommendable for admissions). The descriptions for each level are relatively objective and general enough that alumni could hazard opinions after an hour's interview. The form concluded with a blank page for the alumni's general impression of the student.

Not only are the rankings on the new forms much more specific but the questions to be answered are much more detailed and subjective. Alumni are expected to write to essays rather than check off boxes. Under the section on personal qualities, the form lists such questions as "Can you comment on the applicant's character and values as shown by his/her attitude toward school, friends, family." Other questions include "Will this student be well-liked and/or respected by roommates, House members, and the Faculty?" and "What will he/she contribute to House life and college classmates?"

Admissions officials explain that they changed the form because some alumni were not spending enough time on their answers; they only checked the boxes and then scrawled down two or three lines describing the student. The new approach, officials add, gives the alumni more space and more direction in recording their reactions. But instead of making it easier for alumni to write down their comments, the admissions office may be placing too much pressure on-- and trust in--their interviewers. These alumni haven't seen the students at school, don't know how they act in a social gathering, and won't learn much about their extracurricular potential from only an hour's conversation.

ALUMNI CAN BE the admissions office's best friends. After all, they provide the office with a unique service, tackling the heavy responsibility of interviewing students. If the admissions office does not want to strain its friendship, the officials should consider reverting to the old form. If time commitments are a problem, officials could contact the alumni who have not spent enough time on their comments and either ask them to be more specific or discontinue their interviewing. Even though the comments might not be as detailed as they would like, at least the alumni's impressions would be honest and relaxed--and valid.

General impressions from alumni are valuable for their fresh perspective, but relying too heavily on first impressions is likely to blur the picture of an applicant rather than focus it sharply. Rebecca J. Joseph