Why is this traditional Q&A session labeled an 'interview'? Is it because one is supposed to demonstrate his/her internal views in such sessions? If so, who is supposed to demonstrate this? The interviewee or the interviewer? Sometimes, it is interesting to reflect on how certain words transpired into existence.
Well, I had an interview with a Wharton adcom, where I was asked to share my internal views on myself. The session was very casual and I felt fairly comfortable from start to finish. The questions were in the form of: Why Wharton, why MBA, current career path, future career path etc. But I think the most valuable trait that is sought in an interview is your communication ability. This is an intangible that is not asked of directly, but is auto-demostrated as the dialogue progresses. I have always been able to speak in the form that either showcases my confidence, or hides my inconfidence. Not sure. But either one does the job.
Another interview is right on the horizon, with UC Berkeley Haas adcom. I plan to do some obligatory light preparation for this interview the night before and nothing more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment