Eh I guess I'm not as familiar with how many are interviewed vs accepted. In most Canadian schools its around 30% of interviewees are accepted, with about 5% more on the wait-list.
Some schools like the UofT can get upwards of 40%, but it's still not really a "yours to lose"situation. Granted the probability is better but I guess I took it too far out of context.
So looking at the data, in 2014 there were 731,595 applications submitted among every MD school and there was a median of 566 interviews. If the mean is near the median (which is a pretty big assumption), then there was a total of 63,958 interviews granted and 20,343 total matriculants. So by that logic it's about a 30% post-interview matriculation rate. However, those stats are very misleading as it doesn't account for people who had multiple interviews, nor does it account for the actual acceptance rate, but rather the matriculation rate. At my school, around 500 people are accepted for ~270 spots. So if that's a typical number, we could speculate that the actual acceptance rate to be close to 38,000, which would make the post-interview acceptance rate closer to 60%. That's still not really conclusive or probably even very accurate, but I'd be willing to put my money down that as a whole, at least 50% of those interviewed in the U.S. are eventually accepted in the same cycle. I've posted links below.
Obviously there's a lot of speculation there, as there are a lot of factors where the data just isn't out there. The best answer you're going to get on that subject is that it's 100% dependent on the medical school, as some have over 80% post-interview acceptance rates while some will have less than 30%.
Anecdotally, from having multiple adcom members coming to speak to my master's program, the general consensus was that it was a "yours to lose situation". They all said that they pretty much knew whether they were going to accept, waitlist, or reject any given student before they even interviewed, and unless you were a 'borderline' candidate (which was less candidates than we would expect) the interview was basically just to make sure there weren't any red flags with your social skills or ethics. One went so far as to tell us that in all 13 of his years as an adcom member, he only ever explicitly stated that a school needed to accept a person 1 time, while he would explicitly tell them to reject someone 1-2 times each year.
https://www.aamc.org/download/321442/data/factstable1.pdf
https://www.aamc.org/download/261110/data/aibvol11_no7.pdf
Among graduating seniors at my undergrad (traditional applicants) the acceptance rate with no committee screening was 86%. For those with cGPA>3.25, the acceptance rate was 90%.
Including non-trads and alumni, the total acceptance rate was 75-80%.
I know of most comparable schools to have similar numbers. Yes 3.3 is not ideal but it is not a huge issue either.
This information was directly communicated to me from the pre-med advising office.
Edit: I should note though that our traditional applicants averaged 34 on the old MCAT (non-trads 26). This data also does include URMs.
That's great, but like most of the statistics that pre-med advisors provide it isn't particularly useful. It doesn't tell us what the rate of those with a 3.3 is. If you're telling me the acceptance rate of those with a 3.25-3.4 is 90% then I'd need to see data specifically on that before I'd be willing to believe that.
As someone who had a near 3.3 undergrad GPA, I can say that it is a very big deal to have a sub-par GPA. If you're from a well known and very strong program, this may be somewhat forgiven. As Goro has stated, unless those making a decision on your acceptance are familiar with the reputation of your institution, having a 3.3 will not typically be a small issue. That being said, I found the chart at the bottom of this paper to be interesting. Particularly the part where community service is considered more important that both cGPA and MCAT in the post-interview decision:
https://www.aamc.org/download/261106/data/aibvol11_no6.pdf
