For a lot of interviews, why don't interviewers have access to your stats?

[boltedbicorne]

It strikes me as a bit off. If there's a flaw in your stats that can affect how your application will be viewed before you're granted acceptance and rejected, shouldn't interviewers see that? Why does it work this way? Also, would it be in my benefit to bring up any significant application flaws at the end of the interview and clarify them?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hoihaie]

if you have low stats or big flaws do you want the interviewers to think you're stupid/weird/crazy before even meeting you? ppl have biases regardless of how hard they try not to.

 

[Chir0nex]

Presumably if you have gotten an interview your stats are good enough so in that sense they have a sense of your stats. Beyond that though, the real point of the interview is about getting to know your personality and fit with whatever culture the school is shooting for. For those purposes stats are irrelevant, and can create bias before they get to meet you.
If there are any red flags that you want to address and have not done so already you can bring it up in the interview if prompted.

 

[darkjedi]

Presumably if you have gotten an interview your stats are good enough so in that sense they have a sense of your stats. Beyond that though, the real point of the interview is about getting to know your personality and fit with whatever culture the school is shooting for. For those purposes stats are irrelevant, and can create bias before they get to meet you.
If there are any red flags that you want to address and have not done so already you can bring it up in the interview if prompted.

Because interviews are only one aspect of your application. Adcoms take into account all aspects and sometimes they prefer that the interview feedback stays objective to the applicants stats.

 

[mimelim]

It strikes me as a bit off. If there's a flaw in your stats that can affect how your application will be viewed before you're granted acceptance and rejected, shouldn't interviewers see that? Why does it work this way? Also, would it be in my benefit to bring up any significant application flaws at the end of the interview and clarify them?

In general, if you are interviewing somewhere, they think that you on paper are good enough of a student for them to consider you. Every MD school has enough good students in their applicant pool to fill their classes several times over. In general, they don't bother interviewing someone that needs to 'explain' a grade or test unless they have some 'gotta have this student' attribute (maybe a handful of students every year in the entire applicant pool). Interviews are simply another data point in the decision to admit or reject. Why would you want that data point to be influenced or confounded by other data points like your grades?

 

[pink/\floyd]

Because if your stats were that lousy to begin with, you wouldn't even receive the II. Just because someone has high stats does not mean they have a personality. And of course to avoid any bias.

 

[ems2doc]

The idea behind the interview is that you're talking as people, and you're being judged as a person, not a set of statistics.