1) 应该 第一,第二 priority 的 已经面试完了。在 40 人 full committee meetings 开始之前的 第三优先 仍然在继续 interview. 是否有 interview 应该要到12月上旬才能最后确定。
有人私信我今天收到面试通知。
3-Harvard needs it by full committee meetings (first few weeks in December)
2)按照上面信息猜测现在面试的应该是已经进入最后一轮:全体委员会投票决定. 看起来 AO 已经小组委员会不需要面试信息 就可以给这些申请者打分。因此现在面试的录取几率可能还是要高一些。
3)根据前些年公开数据,大概有 21% 的人没有面试。 最后录取的只有 2%是没有面试的。总体没有面试的录取几率是要低 10倍的。
这 21% 当中 应该是有4中情况:
1, too weak no need to interview
2, decline to interview
3, Unavailable to interview
4, too strong no need to interview (?)
没有每个类型的数据,仍然无法判断 H 是否有太强还不需面试的情况。 只有知道这些数据才能下初步结论。比如说如果too weak no need to interview 的 =19%, 那么有无面试没有影响。
其它的 T5 有太强不需面试的,但对于H, 4, too strong no need to interview 的,如果有,也非常少。现在仍然只是一个 urban legend. 需要具体事例证实。
这是我查到的资料: It actually is public information, for domestic applicants. In the multiyear lawsuit sample, 21% of unhooked applicants did not interview, and 2% of unhooked admits did not interview. The students who did not interview appear to have a much lower admit rate than the students who did interview. However, the reasons for that relationship are unclear. Students who choose to not interview are far less likely to be hooked, probably tend to be weaker applicants, and choosing not to interview also may be treated as a negative when evaluating applicants for admission. All of these factors may contribute to the lower admit rate.
I expect the 2% who were admitted without interviewing are primarily students who were unable to interview for reasons beyond their control, such as interviews not being offered in their region or problems on the side of the alumni interviewer. I’d be very surprised if Harvard applied a direct penalty to students who were unable to interview for reasons beyond their control. Instead it might have a less direct influence, such as not having the opportunity to present additional information not found in the application.