Interviews

[McCram]

So I'm wondering . . . I know a great interview can have a positive effect on admissions and obviously a bad one will hurt your chances. But what happens when the interview is lukewarm or neutral, ie responses given, brief interview with no profound interaction.

How much weight do you think a lukewarm interview holds? I'd appreciate some feedback from those who have navigated the admissions process. Thanks.

I've always thought that I don't give off an aura of enthusiasm and try to keep things professional. But this may lead to some un-engaging interviews, right?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[OddNath]

So I'm wondering . . . I know a great interview can have a positive effect on admissions and obviously a bad one will hurt your chances. But what happens when the interview is lukewarm or neutral, ie responses given, brief interview with no profound interaction.

How much weight do you think a lukewarm interview holds? I'd appreciate some feedback from those who have navigated the admissions process. Thanks.

I've always thought that I don't give off an aura of enthusiasm and try to keep things professional. But this may lead to some un-engaging interviews, right?

I personally had an *awful* MD-only interview at the school I am currently attending, so you never know

Just be yourself and come prepared with questions to ask about the school (and asking about the interviewer's work can also help). If you come off as engaged and articulate, then I think you can definitely leave a positive (more than a lukewarm!) impression.

 

[DrBowtie]

Lukewarm interview + good stats = acceptance at most places.
A good interview is def. needed for the top schools since everyone has good stats.

 

[Law2Doc]

Lukewarm interview + good stats = acceptance at most places.

I actually think this totally depends on the school. Some schools reportedly consider applicants equal once they get to the interview stage, so your stats no longer help you -- you then have a 1 in 4 (or whatever percentage of people get interviewed at such school) chance of getting in based totally on the interviews. Some other schools factor the interview in and reconsider the candidate as a whole, but the interview is given great weight. I certainly know many people who did great interviews and bumped out lukewarm interview folks with significantly better stats. So don't write off the interview as a formality.

 

[71263]

Interviews are more important than most people think. Getting to the interview is arguably the hardest step in the application process. At that point, the medical schools will have your complete files, with rec letters, transcripts, etc, not to mention every last penny from your bank acct . In any case, this is where they take a serious look at your application and decide if they actually would consider you for their school. My belief is at this point, based on AMCAS + secondaries alone, you would be good enough to be accepted. The purpose of the interview is to see if you have the matching personality and right reasons/motivation to go into the field, and also to make sure you werent lying/BSing too much in you application, so study your files well!!

 

[Rzarecta]

Interviews are really too difficult to quantify, because all interviewers are so different from one another. For example, many people walk out of interviews thinking they did extremely well, only to find a wait list letter in their mailbox 4 weeks later. Why? Because many interviewers are really nice people that don't say anything negative about anyone, and thus everyone gets "great" interview feedback. On the other end, a few interviewers are such hard-asses that everyone feels he/she had a bad interview, but his few positive comments are probably given more credence since he is so damned stingy with them.

In my own experience, I walked out of what I considered to be a horrible interview experience (15 minutes long, and the interviewer himself told me that I would not be interested in the school as he thought my numbers were too competitive. This guy called his school mid-tier at best, and was almost too frank about the whole thing). I received an acceptance 2 weeks later.

Honestly, don't overanalyze your interview unless you made an unforgivable faux pas. They, just like the rest of the process, can be a total crapshoot. And if you interview at a school which you consider to be way out of your league, don't be surprised if a strong interview still garners you a wait list. Be yourself, and at most places that will be enough.

 

[Law2Doc]

Interviews are really too difficult to quantify, because all interviewers are so different from one another. For example, many people walk out of interviews thinking they did extremely well, only to find a wait list letter in their mailbox 4 weeks later. Why? Because many interviewers are really nice people that don't say anything negative about anyone, and thus everyone gets "great" interview feedback. On the other end, a few interviewers are such hard-asses that everyone feels he/she had a bad interview, but his few positive comments are probably given more credence since he is so damned stingy with them.

In my own experience, I walked out of what I considered to be a horrible interview experience (15 minutes long, and the interviewer himself told me that I would not be interested in the school as he thought my numbers were too competitive. This guy called his school mid-tier at best, and was almost too frank about the whole thing). I received an acceptance 2 weeks later.

Honestly, don't overanalyze your interview unless you made an unforgivable faux pas. They, just like the rest of the process, can be a total crapshoot. And if you interview at a school which you consider to be way out of your league, don't be surprised if a strong interview still garners you a wait list. Be yourself, and at most places that will be enough.

I don't think the interview's importance is a crapshoot, but I think the ability of an applicant to tell how they did on an interview sometimes is. Some interviewers are abrasive, difficult and very tough to tell if they like you -- but sometimes they do, even without you knowing, and so you hear of people who felt they interviewed badly but still got in. Similarly, some interviewers are so nice that you can't tell that they are wholly unimpressed with you -- but the form they fill out for the adcom committee probably won't be so unclear. In the interview you described above where the guy told you you were too good for his school, he apparently honestly reported back to the committee that you were a great candidate (and left out of his report the fact that he tried to dissuade you from coming). Not sure why that is suspect.

 

[Rzarecta]

I don't think the interview's importance is a crapshoot, but I think the ability of an applicant to tell how they did on an interview sometimes is. Some interviewers are abrasive, difficult and very tough to tell if they like you -- but sometimes they do, even without you knowing, and so you hear of people who felt they interviewed badly but still got in. Similarly, some interviewers are so nice that you can't tell that they are wholly unimpressed with you -- but the form they fill out for the adcom committee probably won't be so unclear. In the interview you described above where the guy told you you were too good for his school, he apparently honestly reported back to the committee that you were a great candidate (and left out of his report the fact that he tried to dissuade you from coming). Not sure why that is suspect.

Sorry, I should have clarified the source of my apprehension. I felt that the interviewer was dismissive because he made it seem like he thought I was using the school as a backup, and thus giving me an acceptance would have been a waste of a spot. I should not have suggested the interview is a total crapshoot, but I believe that people put much greater value in it than its actual worth.

 

[Law2Doc]

... I should not have suggested the interview is a total crapshoot, but I believe that people put much greater value in it than its actual worth.

Well, again, I know a few people who managed to barely get an interview and then totally sell themselves successfully to the schools - totally leapfrogging past much more numerically qualified candidates who had lackluster interviews. For both those sets of students, the actual worth was the difference between admission and possibly being a reapplicant. So I still say that the value of interviewing well versus badly is pretty significant.

 

[DrBowtie]

It seems like there would be a pre-interview ranking based upon primary and secondary data and the interview could bump you up or down the list or hold your current spot. Thats how I would do it atleast.

 

[Bap2qwrq7]

Interviews depend a lot on the school.

UIowa barely instituted interviewing into their process I think ten years ago or so, and I don't think it really plays that significant of a role as the interview itself is pretty basic and low level. One of the guys I met at my interview day there mentioned how he was invited to interview at teh school last year and he said he had a great interview but was then rejected. He called teh school up to see what hurt him and they said his scores weren't good enough but his interview went very well. So he was a tad annoyed he had to go out of his way to interview when they should have just screened him out initially.

At other schools, it's done by a committee vote where they take everything into account including the interview and vote, even people who have not met you. If you get a sufficient number of votes theny ou're in. Just varies from school to school as to how important the interview can be.

But most of the time they're pretty easy so it's really difficult to bomb them especially with the interview feedback that SDN provides.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

I've heard at some schools you're scored based on your interview performance and stats. These scores factor into an overall number that basically dictates acceptance/waitlist/rejection. For example, at OHSU the interview weighs 70% and stats weigh 30%, your PS, EC's, and Rec's factor in to whether or not you get interviewed. If you ace your interview and have mediocre stats, you still have a very good chance for acceptance. But if you have stellar stats and have a poor interview, you have little shot.

 

[DrDarwin]

There's no way--at the "top" schools, at least--that the interview is tremendously more important than everything else. Among all the very smart and qualified applicants interviewing at these schools, it is the rare applicant who cannot be socially competent and generally amiable for a short period of time. And because everyone realizes that most of these people can put on a 30-60 minute charade if necessary, the interview is, for the most part, merely one component--or a sub-score at some schools--that is used in the admissions process. Consider the following...

When I was interviewing at HMS, my student host told me about his interview at PENN, where he interviewed with a physician who was mentored by his parents when they were physicians in the PENN hospital system. When my host walked into the room, his interviewer said, "Wow, you must be the son of so and so. Your parents were two of my most influential mentors. It is really a privilege to meet you." My host was like, "Yeah, sweet, nice to meet you too!" After shooting the **** for nearly an hour, the interviewer said, "Don't worry about anything. I am going to write you a fantastic letter." He was not accepted . If everyone were equal at the interview stage, which is an intrinsically ridiculous assumption, my host would have undoubtedly been accepted. (Though I will concede that this story is anecdotal, it is no more so than the "My friend with mediocre stats was accepted at SOM X after an awesome interview, so the interview is obviously the most important element in the admissions process" garbage you have no doubt been reading already.)

While the importance of the interview is admittedly dependent on the school, it is also dependent on the reputation and importance of the person interviewing you (e.g., Dean of Admissions vs. Dr. Altruism who serves on the Ad Com every third year by default and relishes the prospect of biting the heads off of any Joe Benchtops and Betty Beakers that have the misfortune of interviewing with him). So even at the same school, all interviews are not equal, which makes quantifying their importance an exercise in futility. I wouldn't bother. Just make sure you don't bomb it!

 

[TheMightyAngus]

There's no way--at the "top" schools, at least--that the interview is tremendously more important than everything else. Among all the very smart and qualified applicants interviewing at these schools, it is the rare applicant who cannot be socially competent and generally amiable for a short period of time. And because everyone realizes that most of these people can put on a 30-60 minute charade if necessary, the interview is, for the most part, merely one component--or a sub-score at some schools--that is used in the admissions process. Consider the following...

When I was interviewing at HMS, my student host told me about his interview at PENN, where he interviewed with a physician who was mentored by his parents when they were physicians in the PENN hospital system. When my host walked into the room, his interviewer said, "Wow, you must be the son of so and so. Your parents were two of my most influential mentors. It is really a privilege to meet you." My host was like, "Yeah, sweet, nice to meet you too!" After shooting the **** for nearly an hour, the interviewer said, "Don't worry about anything. I am going to write you a fantastic letter." He was not accepted . If everyone were equal at the interview stage, which is an intrinsically ridiculous assumption, my host would have undoubtedly been accepted. (Though I will concede that this story is anecdotal, it is no more so than the "My friend with mediocre stats was accepted at SOM X after an awesome interview, so the interview is obviously the most important element in the admissions process" garbage you have no doubt been reading already.)

While the importance of the interview is admittedly dependent on the school, it is also dependent on the reputation and importance of the person interviewing you (e.g., Dean of Admissions vs. Dr. Altruism who serves on the Ad Com every third year by default and relishes the prospect of biting the heads off of any Joe Benchtops and Betty Beakers that have the misfortune of interviewing with him). So even at the same school, all interviews are not equal, which makes quantifying their importance an exercise in futility. I wouldn't bother. Just make sure you don't bomb it!

Some schools are forthright with their acceptance procedure, OHSU is one of them.

 

[DrDarwin]

Some schools are forthright with their acceptance procedure, OHSU is one of them.

Great. You'll notice my argument was somewhat restricted by the first sentence in my message. Generally, the less prestigious--and less private--the school, the more transparent the admissions process. Applicants will therefore have no trouble ascertaining the importance of the interview at most state schools, including OHSU.