Without any special knowledge, I would guess that alumni interviews are indeed a sham.

Even if detailed and credible reports on interviews are taken quite seriously indeed, however, it makes sense that the admissions office would not rely on an interview outcome as a basis for a *rejection* of a candidate otherwise quite strong.

The basis for such a policy should be obvious: Where is the quality-control mechanism? Interviewers are alums. They could be curmudgeons, lunatics, bigots, flakes, or people with axes to grind. A parent comes in to claim that an interviewer's racism has cost a student his rightful place at Harvard, the admissions office needs to be able to say, honestly, No, we never count interviews AGAINST a student. They can only help an application, never hurt it.

Common sense it seems to me, both from a quality-control standpoint (who can audit an alumnus's work, or fire them if they suck at interviewing?) and from a legal-exposure standpoint.

The alumnus in question, however, should, obviously, direct her queries to the admissions office whom she serves. I'm sure they have more politic, more precise, and (probably) more accurate descriptions of the way they use interview results. They are pros and will field her concerned inquiry about this applicant with aplomb and charm.

Standing Eagle
 

Agree with SE. Even if they are careful about interviews for people who do get admitted (I have no idea), it's easy to imagine they care much less about them for people who aren't admitted.
 

It is my understanding that alumni interviews can only help (or hurt) candidates whom are on a bubble...

It is just a way for colleges to make sure they aren't sending out a letter of denial to a 'gem' whom doesn't appear as such on paper (via the application)....or accepting someone whom comes across great on paper, but is missing the personal/social intelligence.
 

10:18 --

Your post not only lacks interesting substance, and gives no evidence for the anodyne claims it does make (i.e., that an interview might help or hurt a candidate).

What part of my argument that an interview can almost never hurt a candidate would you disagree with, and why?
 

Typing errors in first paragraph just above: for 'and' read 'it.'

For 'claims' read 'claim.'
 

I agree with 10:18, during my Harvard interview, my alumna interviewer went through the categories on the common application and asked me every question on it - SAT scores, AP scores, extracurriculars, "What did you write your common application essays about?", etc. The only question she asked me that wasn't on the application was "Why do you like math?" My experience may have been unusual since my interviewer had very different interests from my own and seemed to be somewhat inexperienced at this, but considering that she specialized in private school students from Manhattan I can't imagine that her interviews were making any difference.

[I took a cab ride home, and had an interesting conversation with the driver - he said that my saying "I didn't vote for Bush because I think he's a moron" was inadequate, and then ranted about some political article he had read in Atlantic Monthly.]