Gryphon wrote:
Completed my interview recently. It was on campus with a member of the Admissions Committee. Pretty much the standard questions outlined by others.
This was my fourth interview (Tuck, Johnson, and Darden before this). Five months ago if you'd asked me whether open interviews were a good thing, I would have said yes. Now, having gone through two of them (Tuck also), I'd say I'm not really a fan. It's a bit of a cattle call. And you're shelling out a lot of money to travel before you even know whether the school has any interest in you (unless you select off-campus for Kellogg).
My interviewer tried to be nice, but for the most part she seemed distant. It was very tough to get a feel for whether anything resonated with her. The two schools that invited me to interview seemed more enthusiastic about conducting the interview because a couple people had already vetted the application and deemed you worthy of talking to. I got the feeling at Kellogg that some of the interviewers are tired, worn out, and just going through the steps in a very detached sort of way. Maybe I just caught her on a bad day, but it seemed to not jive with the overall Kellogg atmosphere.
I did really enjoy the school and my class visit. I'd be thrilled to get in.
I agree with you. With the schools from which I received an invite I know I have roughly a 40% to 60% chance of getting in. That makes it a lot easier to justify taking a day off work, and spending $400 to $600 on a flight and hotel. With the open invite, you have no idea if you are just spending more money for no reason. Besides, while my impression is the interview is important, it's more a bad interview can ruin a good paper application, than a great interview salvaging a poor paper application. If you are a ding before the interview, there's a likelihood you're a ding afterwards.