When I was preparing for my junior high school entrance exam, interviews were a normal part of the process. I still remember being asked, “Who do you respect most?” I answered “James Watt,” not because I deeply admired him, but simply because I had enjoyed a comic about him.

However, in recent years, many schools have banned such questions in interviews, citing privacy concerns. Yet what truly matters isn’t who you respect, but why. Even if a student said “Hitler” or “Stalin,” I’d want to ask, “Why?” rather than judge. If a family dislikes such questions, that’s simply a matter of fit. Interviews should be freer; after all, they’re just verbal exchanges for young students.

Unfortunately, fewer schools now hold interviews at all. Ten years ago, many Kansai schools did, but now only a handful remain. The main reason may be logistical—since students often take two exams a day, uncertainty in interview schedules discourages applications. Web-based applications have also removed the need for recommendation letters, leaving scores as the sole admission factor.

But should we really eliminate interviews just because they’re “symbolic”? Numbers alone can’t capture a child’s personality, communication, or potential. Some students might not score high but show exceptional promise in conversation. Interviews can be a place to find such diamonds in the rough.

After exams, school representatives often visit cram schools. Some merely share results and leave; others provide updates about how past students are doing. The latter are the ones who inspire trust. Grades matter, of course, but so does the growth behind them. The relationship between schools and cram schools should be based on shared human understanding—not just data.