1. An application is considered in exceptional detail by a subcommittee of committee members. Further, an application is scored evenly between its two interviewers - an adcom's interview score is no more important than the non-adcom interviewer's. The subcommittees are designed precisely to prevent a single individual's bias from blocking an otherwise promising applicant. One has to receive the okay from all members of the subcommittee to reach the full committee (where an application is once again reviewed) just as one has to receive the proverbial thumbs down from all subcommittee members to be rejected. Disproportionate evaluations are explored and notes explaining precisely why one was unsuccessful are added to the file.
While the subcommittee design is a bit different from other schools, applicants are treated as fairly here as at most other schools.
2. While UNC's first two non-clinical years may be nothing new in design and execution, they nonetheless prepare students to succeed on STEP, in clinic, and in matching. In fact, UNC is well-known for providing one of the best clinical training experiences in the country during the third and fourth years, one that prepares students to do well as interns. As a fourth-year med student I know at Hopkins aptly put it, schools pimp their first two years; however, what should be paramount is how they prepare students in the actual practice of medicine. The clinical training at UNC is a point of tremendous pride.
3. Yes, UNC could improve the interview day. Without question. Further, they could work on post-interview transparency. Again, without question.
I know you're frustrated - understandably so - but you have to appreciate how saying you would drop UNC were you not in-state sounds. Despite its flaw - which EVERY school possesses - it remains one of the best in the country. Its students a very proud to attend UNC, many of whom turned down WashU, Duke, etc to come to Chapel Hill.