Totally agree. Admissions was totally misleading about the whole process. When I didn't get a call in January, that was the death knoll. However, when an inquiry was made, the response was, "still February, still March" or "all acceptances not given out". I mean for real? Why keep everyone dangling on a string. There were posters here who interviewed in November who thought they had a chance.
I think interviewing here was a total waste of time. Clearly the "admissions committee" looks at something separate from the interview. I agree, the interviewers they get don't give a realistic picture. Parrish and Diggins both said that they want to make the interview a "pleasant" experience, and that's why they ask preplanned questions. It's plain dumb. They think they are one-upping the traditional interviews, but those are so much more realistic. The point of interviews is to gauge your candidacy. Look at your strengths, question your weaknesses. This silly format asking, "what irritates you" "describe an embarrassing experience" is just nonsense. On top of that Parrish said the interview was the greatest determiner. Its totally false. Like the previous poster said, the interviewers are gonna tell everyone "Good job, nice response" when the questions are preplanned and have nothing to do with application weaknesses. The admissions committee probably does look at your weaknesses without informing you what they think.
I am not sure how the funding controversy is going to play out, but apparently even the Dean is facing some heat and a lot of faculty might leave. I think this school was a poor choice to interview at, and I think Diggins and Parrish were pretty much full of it.