Every year, colleges use GPAs and standardized test results to weed through hundreds and hundreds of applicants. Many people who support this approach claim that numbers are the most objective and effective way to assess academic preparation and compare kids from various backgrounds. They believe that high GPAs demonstrate discipline and consistency, whereas test scores provide a clear, universal norm at a university level. However, this technique misses an important aspect: the student’s entire life story.
As the National Association for College Admission Counseling puts it, “a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach…does not reflect the realities facing our nation’s many and varied colleges and universities” (Syverson et al. 4). Focusing solely on numbers may appear objective, but it risks silencing voices that do not fit neatly into those measures. Too often, traditional admissions ignore originality, perseverance, and personal journeys that cannot be quantified on a 4.0 scale. That’s where interviews come in. They give admissions teams the chance to really see applicants as full human beings, not just data points. Interviews make admissions fairer, more human, and much better at spotting potential that test scores might miss.
Think of it this way: judging a student based only on their transcript is like reviewing a movie by looking at the poster. You might get the basic idea, but you’ll miss the heart of the story. A GPA doesn’t show you the hours a student spent caring for siblings, the evenings they had to work to support their households, the community projects they participated in outside of school, or who has dealt with illness. An interview brings that story to life. Imagine a student with a 1.9 GPA—not because they slacked off, but because they changed schools five times in four years or had to work nights to support their family. In an interview, they can explain that journey. They can show the strength it took to keep going. That kind of grit and maturity doesn’t show up on a report card.
Interviews also help make admissions more equitable. Standardized tests and GPAs often reflect a student’s access to resources more than their actual potential. Michael Pershan points out, “Socioeconomic factors skew both grades and test scores, rewarding students with access to tutoring and penalizing those who must balance work or family responsibilities” (Pershan). This is where interviews level the playing field.
Ajay Ormosen has an associate’s degree in Social & Behavioral Science from a community college, which took about five years to complete, ultimately graduating with a 2.3 GPA. In high school, she graduated with minimal coursework, and she said it best: “In my case, the barrier toward graduating was mainly health-related. For some it’s family situations/home lives; for some it’s the impact of something else outside of their control. There are hundreds of ways someone can be a capable, talented, intelligent human, and that not equate to their GPA.” She added, “Hearing the stories from the students themselves would benefit all colleges by ensuring they get authentic humans” (Ormosen). Her resilience and determination to keep pushing forward in the face of adversity were what stood out in her application, not the number. Interviews provided her the opportunity to be recognized for who she truly was.
This is not only about fairness; it is about creating stronger campuses. Colleges benefit from students who bring all kinds of experiences, talents, and perspectives. These things don’t always show up in test scores. Crossin adds that “not every high school can present its students equally,” and many gifted students are overlooked because their schools lacked advanced courses or extracurriculars (Crossin).
A well-conducted interview can showcase qualities like creativity, emotional intelligence, and vision. Perhaps a student does not have a 4.0 GPA, but they trained themselves to code at an almost professional level. That drive and initiative are important, and they are frequently a stronger sign of future success than flawless grades.
Take a moment and consider if colleges admitted only students with flawless test scores. You would have a campus full of top achievers, but far less diversity, insight, and innovation. The issue is depending too heavily on numbers: they fail to capture the complexity and depth of real people.
Of course, some people worry that interviews bring in too much subjectivity. They fear that smooth talkers will get ahead, or that interviewers might be biased. But as the NACAC notes, “test scores correlate strongly with family income” (Syverson et al.). The GPAs and test scores aren’t free from bias either. They are influenced by family wealth, school funding, even how quiet a student’s testing environment was. The system already favors some students over others.
Another concern is logistics: how can colleges find the time and resources to interview everyone? Most admissions offices are small and already stretched thin. That’s a valid point. But it doesn’t mean interviews are impossible. It just means the system needs to be reimagined. With better planning, schools could bring on seasonal staff. The process could also start earlier in the year, easing the usual winter rush. Yes, it would take effort, but investing in more human-centered admissions could lead to student bodies that are not just academically strong, but also more diverse, thoughtful, and creative.
Colleges can also reduce interview bias by training staff, using standard questions, and reviewing responses in teams. Done right, interviews are fair and powerful; they add context and depth that numbers alone never could. It’s not about throwing away academics—it’s about adding perspective.
So, what’s the next step? Colleges should shift to a hybrid model. Keep using the academic metrics, but add a short (15–30 minute) interview for each applicant. Focus on things like creativity, goals, personal growth, and overcoming challenges. Track how those students perform. Over time, this approach will build campuses that are not only smart, but also diverse, passionate, and full of real-world problem-solvers.
Colleges must reconsider how they select students in today’s society, where empathy and adaptability are equally important as test scores. Including interviews is not only a good idea, but also a required one. If schools want to find the next generation of leaders, creators, and changemakers, they need to do more than calculate.
They need to listen.
