Alumni Interview programs exist mainly to create a sense of continued involvement with the alma mater post-graduation so alumni will donate more. Their interview reports were rarely material to a decision.
A main reason for this is that alumni, like newly minted admission officers, have no clue how preposterously competitive the process is and how many monstrously academically qualified applicants there are. So they write rave reviews of smart kids who really aren't all that special in the context of the applicant pool.
Don't admission officers actually come from worse educational backgrounds than alumni? I think many AO never reach educational or career heights that would help them appreciate the accomplishments of applicants while alumni do.
A main reason for this is that alumni, like newly minted admission officers, have no clue how preposterously competitive the process is and how many monstrously academically qualified applicants there are. So they write rave reviews of smart kids who really aren't all that special in the context of the applicant pool.