Adcom decision before the interview?

[Homoochan]

I was reading SDNwiki thingy and somewhere I read adcom already has its mind made whether to accept or not accept.

Is this true? Anyone with experiences where the interviewer told them they're already accepted during the interview?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[flip26]

Never heard of that, but I can believe that they rank applicants coming into interviews, and the interview is the final "smell test" of the applicant, to make sure they match up with the person they saw on paper.

 

[Law2Doc]

I was reading SDNwiki thingy and somewhere I read adcom already has its mind made whether to accept or not accept.

Is this true? Anyone with experiences where the interviewer told them they're already accepted during the interview?

No. The interview at most schools is a HUGE component in whether or not to admit. Meaning there is no real way of making the decision before the interview because the interview is what can make the difference one way or the other in most cases. Sort of like trying to determine your grade going into a final exam that's worth 40% of your grade.

Premeds like to think that everything they did to make themselves strong on paper is going to carry the day, and that the interview is just a formality, but that's rarely the case. In most cases, everyone invited to interview has made it above a certain "acceptability" threshold, and the rest of the decision can turn on the interview. You will meet people in med school who got past stronger applicants on the strength of their interviewing skills, and will see people whining on SDN at the end of the interview season about how they had 3.7/37 and 10 interviews and got in noplace. Happens EVERY year. Why? Because the interview matters, a lot. Sometimes it's the single most important aspect of the application.

So if you serioulsly think decisions are frequently made before this important aspect of the process, you're wrong. Doesn't matter if you read it on SDNWiki, or whereever. It's just bad advice.

 

[BlueElmo]

No. The interview at most schools is a HUGE component in whether or not to admit. Meaning there is no real way of making the decision before the interview because the interview is what can make the difference one way or the other in most cases. Sort of like trying to determine your grade going into a final exam that's worth 40% of your grade.

Premeds like to think that everything they did to make themselves strong on paper is going to carry the day, and that the interview is just a formality, but that's rarely the case. In most cases, everyone invited to interview has made it above a certain "acceptability" threshold, and the rest of the decision can turn on the interview. You will meet people in med school who got past stronger applicants on the strength of their interviewing skills, and will see people whining on SDN at the end of the interview season about how they had 3.7/37 and 10 interviews and got in noplace. Happens EVERY year. Why? Because the interview matters, a lot. Sometimes it's the single most important aspect of the application.

So if you serioulsly think decisions are frequently made before this important aspect of the process, you're probably wrong.

Whoa, so interview can be worth as much as that?

 

[brooklynblunder]

i think it depends on the school. but you also hear that it is a committee decision. if its a committee decision, the paper application will most likely be the greatest use for judgement, unless you bomb or ace the interview. i just made all that up though

 

[MegaProjectile]

I was reading SDNwiki thingy and somewhere I read adcom already has its mind made whether to accept or not accept.

Is this true? Anyone with experiences where the interviewer told them they're already accepted during the interview?

Not true. Some schools assign a grade to your application pre-interview and then your interview grade is added to arrive at a total. The total score could lead to a rejection, hold or accept.

Some schools vote on your application. A 2/3 vote leads to acceptance. A split vote ( 50/50) leads to a hold. Less than that equals rejections.


At Case, after your interview, your interviewer can recommend : instant acceptance, acceptance(wait and see), or rejection. I may be forgetting one.

 

[flip26]

Whoa, so interview can be worth as much as that?

I think so, too.

I see these interviews as more of a hurdle than an opportunity. Don't misunderstand - I think I am way above average in these interviews. And the interviews I have had so far have gone very well, in my mind, at least. But no information is being imparted in these interviews, by me or the interviewer, that I can see as being really critical to their evaluation of me, other than the subjective component, and that is what scares me the most about these damn interviews...

 

[Law2Doc]

Whoa, so interview can be worth as much as that?

Let's put it this way. At many places the adcoms deem everybody they invite to the interview as adequately admissible, ie on an equal playing field. Some will actually come out and tell you this during the interview day. Thus the interview becomes the only game in town. They decide which third of their interviewees get in purely on the interview. So take it seriously. It can make or break you. Every invite to an interview is a chance to get an acceptance. The folks in pre-allo will want to believe that because they have a 3.8 and you have a 3.6 they still have the upper hand, but at most programs it doesn't work that way. If you both got invited to the interview, you are still neck and neck, with only the interview to separate you. My suggestion -- practice, practice, practice.

 

[brooklynblunder]

its still tough to judge your interview skillz even if you do practice

there are several aspects to it, obviously
1. selling yourself overall
2. making the interviewer like you as a person
3. showing that the school is a fit for you
4. displaying an understanding of medicine that is at least comparable to your peers

 

[BlueElmo]

Let's put it this way. At many places the adcoms deem everybody they invite to the interview as adequately admissible, ie on an equal playing field. Some will actually come out and tell you this during the interview day. Thus the interview becomes the only game in town. They decide which third of their interviewees get in purely on the interview. So take it seriously. It can make or break you. Every invite to an interview is a chance to get an acceptance. The folks in pre-allo will want to believe that because they have a 3.8 and you have a 3.6 they still have the upper hand, but at most programs it doesn't work that way. If you both got invited to the interview, you are still neck and neck, with only the interview to separate you. My suggestion -- practice, practice, practice.

Cool, I like that. It's a level playing field, and we hold our own fate in our hands. Interview well and you put yourself in a great position.👍

 

[Law2Doc]

its still tough to judge your interview skillz even if you do practice

there are several aspects to it, obviously
1. selling yourself overall
2. making the interviewer like you as a person
3. showing that the school is a fit for you
4. displaying an understanding of medicine that is at least comparable to your peers

While all this is true, you benefit from practice by controlling that which is controllable. If you come off as nervous, have tics, etc, you can learn how to quash these if you know about them. Some people do practice interviews with friends, family (esp if there are doctors in the family), on videotape, or do mock interviews with faculty. It helps make you more polished and less nervous, and lets you try out responses to the more anticipated questions (even the annoying "tell me about yourself" type questions). You can get better at this.

 

[Law2Doc]

Cool, I like that. It's a level playing field, and we hold our own fate in our hands. Interview well and you put yourself in a great position.👍

But again that assumes you were good enough on paper to get the interview. So this is where the better paper credentials play into it. but if at the end of the day you both end up in the interview, then your interviewing prowess (if you have some) is going to let you get past others on paper credentials.

 

[flip26]

Cool, I like that. It's a level playing field, and we hold our own fate in our hands. Interview well and you put yourself in a great position.👍

I don't think it is that simple at all schools as L2D suggests.

I think it is more likely that you go into the interview with a "score" based on your paper app, your GPA, MCAT, etc., and the interview is the test of that paper app - do you come across as well in person as on paper?

But I do think the interview is critical at virtually all schools, just in different ways - I really don't think the playing field is level at the interview stage, though, but you can definitely hurt yourself at an interview, or you may be able to help yourself with a strong performance.

 

[brooklynblunder]

i think your ECs will come into effect during interviews and whatnot. but anyway, its still a competition at that stage

 

[Law2Doc]

I don't think it is that simple at all schools as L2D suggests.

I think it is more likely that you go into the interview with a "score" based on your paper app, your GPA, MCAT, etc., and the interview is the test of that paper app - do you come across as well in person as on paper?

But I do think the interview is critical at virtually all schools, just in different ways - I really don't think the playing field is level at the interview stage, though.

I never said all schools, but I would suggest it's probably most. There are basically three variations you see most often. (1) the schools that treat everyone they give an interview to as on an equal playing field (this is very very common, and many programs will even tell you this at the interview day). (2) the schools that give everyone a score based on their credentials, but the score the interview is worth is so substantially big that it dwarfs any other single factor, (3) places where the interview is just another, but still important factor. In my experience, most schools fall into 1-2, and thus the interview can make or break you. If you think about it, it makes sense, because they already used those other factors to invite you to the interview, so it's kind of a waste of time to revisit everything and effectively double count things. The goal is to sort people into smaller and smaller piles, and so once you weed down a group into interview worthy, you simply don't want to have to go back and revisit things.

 

[flip26]

I never said all schools, but I would suggest it's probably most. There are basically three variations you see most often. (1) the schools that treat everyone they give an interview to as on an equal playing field (this is very very common, and many programs will even tell you this at the interview day). (2) the schools that give everyone a score based on their credentials, but the score the interview is worth is so substantially big that it dwarfs any other single factor, (3) places where the interview is just another, but still important factor. In my experience, most schools fall into 1-2, and thus the interview can make or break you. If you think about it, it makes sense, because they already used those other factors to invite you to the interview, so it's kind of a waste of time to revisit everything and effectively double count things. The goal is to sort people into smaller and smaller piles, and so once you weed down a group into interview worthy, you simply don't want to have to go back and revisit things.

I have been reading this forum for a couple of years, and I have not noticed that this (#1) is the most common at all - I only recall a few schools where this is described (and I can't even remember which ones it is true at). So while I agree that some schools do it this way, I have to question your view that this is common, that the playing field is leveled at the interview stage, and thus that the interview solely determines the fate of the applicant.

I agree: the interview is critical at virtually all schools. For anyone to treat the interview as some unimportant formality is crazy.

So even though I don't believe the "level playing field" concept is common, I approach every interview as a critical step, or as I said earlier, an obstacle to my gaining admission.

 

[BerlinDude]

I have been reading this forum for a couple of years, and I have not noticed that this (#1) is the most common at all - I only recall a few schools where this is described (and I can't even remember which ones it is true at). So while I agree that some schools do it this way, I have to question your view that this is common, that the playing field is leveled at the interview stage, and the interview solely determines the fate of the applicant.

I agree: the interview is critical at virtually all schools. For anyone to treat the interview as some unimportant formality is crazy.

I agree. There is a big range of people who are getting interviews at certain schools, so I doubt anyone would pretend they are all on the same level. Is someone with a mediocre GPA/MCAT/ECs who did marginally better on his interview going to overtake someone with a 4.0/45/great ECs? That would be a pretty silly system.

The way I see it, you can mess up pretty bad on an interview and get yourself rejected, but I doubt you can distinguish yourself on an interview and get accepted.

 

[flip26]

I agree. There is a big range of people who are getting interviews at certain schools, so I doubt anyone would pretend they are all on the same level. Is someone with a mediocre GPA/MCAT/ECs who did marginally better on his interview going to overtake someone with a 4.0/45/great ECs? That would be a pretty silly system.

The way I see it, you can mess up pretty bad on an interview and get yourself rejected, but I doubt you can distinguish yourself on an interview and get accepted.

I agree, even though it is admittedly cynical. That is why I see the interview as a critical obstacle blocking my path to an acceptance. I prep for it, I take it seriously, but I also know that there will be some interviewers that just don't cotton to me. This is why people should apply broadly and attend as many interviews as possible - you just never know how they go about making the decisions.

 

[GTV]

How about this scenario: you go into an interview and the interviewer does not have any of your info in front of him and spends 90% of the interview talking about the school and medicine in general and asks you very few questions, with none of them being very substantial. At the end, he says "you are an impressive applicant," even though he learned very little about you from the interview. I've heard such a scenario means that they've either A) already decided to accept you, or B) already decided to reject you. Thoughts?

 

[BlueElmo]

How about this scenario: you go into an interview and the interviewer does not have any of your info in front of him and spends 90% of the interview talking about the school and medicine in general and asks you very few questions, with none of them being very substantial. At the end, he says "you are an impressive applicant," even though he learned very little about you from the interview. I've heard such a scenario means that they've either A) already decided to accept you, or B) already decided to reject you. Thoughts?

If B is the case, then why would they invite you for an interview in the first place? It seems pretty pointless to make you fly there if they already decided on rejecting you.

 

[flip26]

How about this scenario: you go into an interview and the interviewer does not have any of your info in front of him and spends 90% of the interview talking about the school and medicine in general and asks you very few questions, with none of them being very substantial. At the end, he says "you are an impressive applicant," even though he learned very little about you from the interview. I've heard such a scenario means that they've either A) already decided to accept you, or B) already decided to reject you. Thoughts?

I don't know about either A or B, but I have heard of enough examples of this kind of interview to form the opinion that the interview simply can't be the sole determinant in this process at very many schools.

Interview quality, and interviewer ability and judgment, are too variable at any school to be used as has been suggested by L2D. Some of these schools use 50+ different faculty members and med students to conduct the interviews - how in the hell would they standardize the results?

 

[LoveMyRam]

I have been reading this forum for a couple of years, and I have not noticed that this (#1) is the most common at all - I only recall a few schools where this is described (and I can't even remember which ones it is true at). So while I agree that some schools do it this way, I have to question your view that this is common, that the playing field is leveled at the interview stage, and thus that the interview solely determines the fate of the applicant.

I agree: the interview is critical at virtually all schools. For anyone to treat the interview as some unimportant formality is crazy.

So even though I don't believe the "level playing field" concept is common, I approach every interview as a critical step, or as I said earlier, an obstacle to my gaining admission.

I agree. There is a big range of people who are getting interviews at certain schools, so I doubt anyone would pretend they are all on the same level. Is someone with a mediocre GPA/MCAT/ECs who did marginally better on his interview going to overtake someone with a 4.0/45/great ECs? That would be a pretty silly system.

The way I see it, you can mess up pretty bad on an interview and get yourself rejected, but I doubt you can distinguish yourself on an interview and get accepted.

Guys I don't mean to be rude or mean any disrespect, but you both really sound like you're speculating the process. Reading on sdn for a while and listening to what sdners have to say about interviewing and being accepted is not a way at all to base how you think or feel that the process works.

On the flip side, Law2Doc has been through the interview process, is now in medical school, and is also a mod, meaning they probably have gone through more posts than you guys (combined) AND deal with admissions committe's more than any other pre-med. SO I definitely believe L2D... I mean after all, why would they interview you if they didn't think you had a chance of getting in, so much so as to compare yourself to other interviewees that have remarkable stats. Sorry if you disagree....

 

[Law2Doc]

If B is the case, then why would they invite you for an interview in the first place? It seems pretty pointless to make you fly there if they already decided on rejecting you.

Agreed. This is one of those topics where what actually occurs, and where what people on SDN want to happen are not in line. Premeds who slave throughout school to get their 3.8/38 don't want to hear that this can all be taken away by someone who interviews a bit better. But you'd better get used to this. You will meet folks in med school who didn't have the best numbers on their interview day, but are simply very dynamic in person. You will also see plenty of people who get tons of interviews with great stats and get passed over. We see this EVERY YEAR on SDN -- folks with simply amazing numbers whining about how their interviews went okay and yet they got waitlisted at every school. Why? Because simply not blowing the interview isn't the standard -- you need to ace it as much as you needed to ace all the prereqs. I stand by my above statement of what is common, having been through the process and having had plenty of discussions with adcoms and deans at multiple schools about the process both school specifically and more broadly over the years. I've raised this point almost annually, and many folks who have yet to go through the system cry "foul", but each time I talk to people on the other side of the process, they reinforce my statements.

Flip's suggestion that it makes no sense that someone with a "mediocre GPA/MCAT/ECs" would beat out someone with better stats ignores the fact that the weed out for these factors occurs prior to the interview, in choosing who gets invited on interview day. Massive cuts are made just to get to the number who get invited. Programs are getting as many as 10,000 applications, and can only interview a small fraction of that. So guess what -- everyone with "mediocre" stats doesn't make the cut. That way, everyone on interview day shows up at least potentially acceptable to the school. And from there the interview makes and breaks you. And I would take things like ECs out of the above statement, because as mentioned above, ECs often become fodder for interview discussions -- if you don't have any experiences, you make a lousy interview. So these do play in, even though not counted again. Not so with numerics though.

And why is the interview so important? Because once you get past the basic science years, medicine is something like 80% interpersonal skills, and 20% knowledge based. Thirty years ago med schools were much more "by the numbers", and the public ended up hating the type of doctors being produced, so the field sought to change that, not only by emphasizing the interview, but also to incorporate more nonsci majors, more nontrads, more minorities and women into the field. This is part of the changing of the face of medicine, from number driven scientist males who cannot interface with people well, to a more empathetic, touchy feely, multicultural, multigender group. Medicine is a customer service industry, and how you are in person is going to decide whether patients perceive you as any good. Shows like House are amusing, but in real life nobody goes to a doctor who acts like House. Forty years ago they might have no choice.

 

[BlueElmo]

Thanks, L2D, great post.

 

[BBender716]

Word up.

 

[cleothecat]

Some schools look at LOR's after the interview invite.
If you have poor or lukewarm LOR's the playing field then becomes very uneven, even treacherous.

 

[vickpick]

they might have their mind made up in that "Oh, if this guy doesnt screw up majorly in the interview, we'll accept him."

but not " this guy's accepted"

and not "We did not want this one, but lets just call him in though - we need to interview more people."

but maybe "This applicant's toward the weak side of the bunch, if he doesn't have a good personality and his EC's dont seem genuine during the interview, then we must deny him admission."

 

[flip26]

Agreed. This is one of those topics where what actually occurs, and where what people on SDN want to happen are not in line. Premeds who slave throughout school to get their 3.8/38 don't want to hear that this can all be taken away by someone who interviews a bit better. But you'd better get used to this. You will meet folks in med school who didn't have the best numbers on their interview day, but are simply very dynamic in person. You will also see plenty of people who get tons of interviews with great stats and get passed over. We see this EVERY YEAR on SDN -- folks with simply amazing numbers whining about how their interviews went okay and yet they got waitlisted at every school. Why? Because simply not blowing the interview isn't the standard -- you need to ace it as much as you needed to ace all the prereqs. I stand by my above statement of what is common, having been through the process and having had plenty of discussions with adcoms and deans at multiple schools about the process both school specifically and more broadly over the years. I've raised this point almost annually, and many folks who have yet to go through the system cry "foul", but each time I talk to people on the other side of the process, they reinforce my statements.

Flip's suggestion that it makes no sense that someone with a "mediocre GPA/MCAT/ECs" would beat out someone with better stats ignores the fact that the weed out for these factors occurs prior to the interview, in choosing who gets invited on interview day. Massive cuts are made just to get to the number who get invited. Programs are getting as many as 10,000 applications, and can only interview a small fraction of that. So guess what -- everyone with "mediocre" stats doesn't make the cut. That way, everyone on interview day shows up at least potentially acceptable to the school. And from there the interview makes and breaks you. And I would take things like ECs out of the above statement, because as mentioned above, ECs often become fodder for interview discussions -- if you don't have any experiences, you make a lousy interview. So these do play in, even though not counted again. Not so with numerics though.

And why is the interview so important? Because once you get past the basic science years, medicine is something like 80% interpersonal skills, and 20% knowledge based. Thirty years ago med schools were much more "by the numbers", and the public ended up hating the type of doctors being produced, so the field sought to change that, not only by emphasizing the interview, but also to incorporate more nonsci majors, more nontrads, more minorities and women into the field. This is part of the changing of the face of medicine, from number driven scientist males who cannot interface with people well, to a more empathetic, touchy feely, multicultural, multigender group. Medicine is a customer service industry, and how you are in person is going to decide whether patients perceive you as any good. Shows like House are amusing, but in real life nobody goes to a doctor who acts like House. Forty years ago they might have no choice.

Umm, I did not suggest or say that better numbers always trump...not sure how you got that.

I am saying that I do not believe you are correct that on interview day it is a level playing field, or that the score has been reset to zero, meaning that the sole determining factor for acceptance or rejection is based on the interview. At some schools, I can believe it works that way - it would make the most sense at the most competitive schools. At the majority of schools as you suggest, no, I don't believe it works that way.

But I do believe that it is possible to screw up your interview and hurt your chances.

 

[BerlinDude]

And why is the interview so important? Because once you get past the basic science years, medicine is something like 80% interpersonal skills, and 20% knowledge based. Thirty years ago med schools were much more "by the numbers", and the public ended up hating the type of doctors being produced, so the field sought to change that, not only by emphasizing the interview, but also to incorporate more nonsci majors, more nontrads, more minorities and women into the field. This is part of the changing of the face of medicine, from number driven scientist males who cannot interface with people well, to a more empathetic, touchy feely, multicultural, multigender group. Medicine is a customer service industry, and how you are in person is going to decide whether patients perceive you as any good. Shows like House are amusing, but in real life nobody goes to a doctor who acts like House. Forty years ago they might have no choice.

Interesting post. I think that your thinking reflects what a lot of folks in medicine think. I disagree with it completely. Patients want their physicians to be scientifically-competent professionals who will treat their condition, not a buddy to chit-chat with.

Put it another way, I would rather have someone with a 45 MCAT who can't make small-talk as my physician than someone with a 32 who moonlights as a geisha - even though both passed the minimal level of acceptability.

I also think that the shift away from numbers to intangibles didn't occur to change the face of medicine as you said, but to keep it constant. It was a way to keep increasing numbers of minorities, who were enrolling in college and increasingly doing well academically, away from medicine. By contrast, Dr. Chairman's son with his mediocre scores could wiggle into a med school on the basis of some intangible quality like 'interpersonal skills' or 'well-roundedness'.

 

[flip26]

Guys I don't mean to be rude or mean any disrespect, but you both really sound like you're speculating the process. Reading on sdn for a while and listening to what sdners have to say about interviewing and being accepted is not a way at all to base how you think or feel that the process works.

On the flip side, Law2Doc has been through the interview process, is now in medical school, and is also a mod, meaning they probably have gone through more posts than you guys (combined) AND deal with admissions committe's more than any other pre-med. SO I definitely believe L2D... I mean after all, why would they interview you if they didn't think you had a chance of getting in, so much so as to compare yourself to other interviewees that have remarkable stats. Sorry if you disagree....

And L2D is speculating, too. He is not an adcom. And if you ask some of the actual adcoms who post here (LizzyM) you may get a totally different answer from each of them because this process can vary from school to school.

However, there are schools that are more open about the process. A good example is VCU. If you are interested, you can read about their scoring system for applicants to get an idea of how it all comes together there.

As someone else has pointed out, too, there are schools that don't even look at LORs until post interview. So obviously at these schools, the interview is not the be all and end all determining factor.

 

[Law2Doc]

they might have their mind made up in that "Oh, if this guy doesnt screw up majorly in the interview, we'll accept him."

but not " this guy's accepted"

and not "We did not want this one, but lets just call him in though - we need to interview more people."

but maybe "This applicant's toward the weak side of the bunch, if he doesn't have a good personality and his EC's dont seem genuine during the interview, then we must deny him admission."

While individual members of the adcom may have some of the opinions you mention above, as a group, they generally just divide the world into -- worth an interview, and not going to be interviewed. Once you make it to the desirable pile, you end up evaluated against the others worth an interview. The one truism in this process is that while they might have no problem wasting YOUR time, they will not be quick to waste the time of the various clinicians and adcom members who have volunteered their time to interview for the program, folks who truly have better things they could be doing. So if you end up with an interview, that means you have the potential to be accepted, or the interviewer wouldn't be asked to see you. So the spot is yours for the taking. So treat it like the most important part of the process -- it often is, but regardless, the fact that they carved out an hour in a very busy clinician or dean's schedule for you should let you know that there is a very real chance to secure a spot if you do well. So practice, practice, practice.

 

[Law2Doc]

Interesting post. I think that your thinking reflects what a lot of folks in medicine think. I disagree with it completely. Patients want their physicians to be scientifically-competent professionals who will treat their condition, not a buddy to chit-chat with.
...'.

This has been pretty extensively studied by the field, and fortunately or unfortunately, no they don't. Doctors who spend more time with patients get sued less, have more repeat business, etc. Although some services offer the possibility for patients to research their doctor's credentials, they simply do not use them. And whenever asked what patients want out of their doctor, the bedside manner aspects always rank higher than scientific proficiency or credentials. The swing in medicine away from the by the numbers admissions is reflective of the fact that in various ways patients had weighed in their displeasure at the type of physician being generated. This wasn't done as a whim -- it was done because the field realized this was a patient service industry, and so they got patient input, and realized that the bio major squid who lived in the library often made a lousy clinician from the patient's perspective.

 

[Law2Doc]

...
I also think that the shift away from numbers to intangibles didn't occur to change the face of medicine as you said, but to keep it constant. It was a way to keep increasing numbers of minorities, who were enrolling in college and increasingly doing well academically, away from medicine. By contrast, Dr. Chairman's son with his mediocre scores could wiggle into a med school on the basis of some intangible quality like 'interpersonal skills' or 'well-roundedness'.

The numbers don't support this. Women and minorities and nontrads and non-sci majors all entered the profession far more significantly once this shift away from numbers began. The field forty years ago was much more significantly male, white, bio majors. Today there are at least as many women as men in most med schools, and the number of non-white, non-male, non-bio majors is at an all time low. So if this was meant to be a Jim Crow law, it failed miserably.

 

[Homoochan]

Is this a separate questions but.. w/e

Are the interviews mostly about primary and secondary application?

 

[Simplify]

I agree with Law2Doc. His advice is not only good for medical school but also for any white collar job in general. Interviews are never a formality. The numbers game gets your foot in the door of the interview room, but it is how you carry yourself in an interview that is the deciding factor. Interpersonal skills, confidence, competence and appearance are incredibly important. Even if you (or I) don't get into medical school interviewing is a part every career. It will make or break you throughout your professional life. I've been on both sides of the interviewing table in my life. There are always people who look great on paper but that doesn't mean they are a lock for the job.

 

[BlueElmo]

And L2D is speculating, too. He is not an adcom. And if you ask some of the actual adcoms who post here (LizzyM) you may get a totally different answer from each of them because this process can vary from school to school.

However, there are schools that are more open about the process. A good example is VCU. If you are interested, you can read about their scoring system for applicants to get an idea of how it all comes together there.

As someone else has pointed out, too, there are schools that don't even look at LORs until post interview. So obviously at these schools, the interview is not the be all and end all determining factor.

But definitely more experienced than us pre-meds. He has more credibility behind his posts than us, I would think. I think what he's saying makes a lot of sense.

 

[Law2Doc]

But definitely more experienced than us pre-meds. He has more credibility behind his posts than us, I would think. I think what he's saying makes a lot of sense.

Thanks. You all are welcome to believe or not -- I don't particularly care, I'm well past this hurdle you guys are currently jumping. I'm just passing on the wisdom I've accumulated. But, whether you want to believe me or not, do yourself one favor -- treat the interview as huge. Prepare for it. Practice. It WILL make a difference, whether you'd like it to or not. Nuff said.

 

[flip26]

But definitely more experienced than us pre-meds. He has more credibility behind his posts than us, I would think. I think what he's saying makes a lot of sense.

Not really. And some of us have actually been around the block a few times, and have had lots of interview experience, have held jobs in the business world, etc.

I don't know how many med school interviews he has had, but I have had 4, and soon it will be 6 or more. I am not claiming that will make me more of an expert on admissions than L2D, but I won't concede any ground to him on this issue, either, just because he is in med school.

He is not an adcom. He is a med student. That does not make him privy to anything about the process except maybe what goes on at his school if he has contact with his school's adcom, but if he is not an actual member of that adcom, he is speculating, just like the rest of us.

 

[BlueElmo]

Not really. And some of us have actually been around the block a few times, and have had lots of interview experience, have held jobs in the business world, etc.

I don't know how many med school interviews he has had, but I have had 4, and soon it will be 6 or more. I am not claiming that will make me more of an expert on admissions than L2D, but I won't concede any ground to him on this issue, either, just because he is in med school.

He is not an adcom. He is a med student. That does not make him privy to anything about the process except maybe what goes on at his school if he has contact with his school's adcom, but if he is not an actual member of that adcom, he is speculating, just like the rest of us.

He's a resident. Not a med student. We're pre-meds.

 

[wanderer]

Are there any schools that post stats for those granted interviews as well as for those granted acceptances?

 

[MegaProjectile]

I agree with Law2Doc. His advice is not only good for medical school but also for any white collar job in general. Interviews are never a formality. The numbers game gets your foot in the door of the interview room, but it is how you carry yourself in an interview that is the deciding factor. Interpersonal skills, confidence, competence and appearance are incredibly important. Even if you (or I) don't get into medical school interviewing is a part every career. It will make or break you throughout your professional life. I've been on both sides of the interviewing table in my life. There are always people who look great on paper but that doesn't mean they are a lock for the job.

Med school interview isn't the same as a job interview. Rarely does a med school interview make or break an applicant unless you're utterly stupid or had a mental breakdown(Opposite in job interviews). Schools go out of their way to make the interviews comfortable and conversational. Most follow the same algorithms : why do want to be a doctor? What's your ECs like? And some social/ ethical questions....
Students put a lot of hype on the importance of a med interviews but at the end of the day, it is the admission committee not your interviewer that accepts you.

I have been out of school for 5 years and working multiples jobs during this time. My med school interviews are nowhere close to my job interviews. The stakes are vastly different.

 

[flip26]

He's a resident. Not a med student. We're pre-meds.

My point still stands. He is not an adcom. He has gone through the process that we are going through now. And I don't think he has any inside information on how the interview is weighted at every (or most) med schools, no matter what he believes is done at the school he attended.

Moreover, I have been reading these threads for a couple of years now, and there is a small number of schools that seem to do what L2D suggests - level the playing field at the interview stage so that the make or break decision is based solely on the interview. I do think the interview is critical and not some meaningless formality, but I tend to believe that it is only one part of the decision making process and that your "paper" application, along with LORs, is weighed heavily in the final decision, along with any glaring issues gleaned by the interviewer.

Otherwise, why wouldn't interviewers be granted the authority to accept people on the spot? Why bother with having the adcom reconvene and review each applicant post-interview if the interview is the sole determining factor? The truth is, unlike in the business world, the interviewer at medical school is not the decision maker - hell, I have even had an interview with an MS4 this year, and I damn sure know that they have no authority to accept someone, whatever their input is worth to the adcom.

The interviewers in med school are more like some lowly staffer in the HR dept at a business interviewing a job applicant. And as anybody who has ever applied for a real job knows, you don't want to waste your time being interviewed by people who have no authority to hire you.

 

[flip26]

Med school interview isn't the same as a job interview. Rarely does a med school interview make or break an applicant unless you're utterly stupid or had a mental breakdown(Opposite in job interviews). Schools go out of their way to make the interviews comfortable and conversational. Most follow the same algorithms : why do want to be a doctor? What's your ECs like? And some social/ ethical questions....
Students put a lot of hype on the importance of a med interviews but at the end of the day, it is the admission committee not your interviewer that accepts you.

I have been out of school for 5 years and working multiples jobs during this time. My med school interviews are nowhere close to my job interviews. The stakes are vastly different.

👍

 

[NotSur]

.

 

[JJMrK]

For what it's worth, the schools I've interviewed at so far consider the interview as a part of the whole, and stressed that they consider the entire application when making the final decision.

It seems like some schools take the "level playing field" approach after the interview, while others look at numbers, LOR, essays, and interview performance to make the final decision.

 

[BerlinDude]

The numbers don't support this. Women and minorities and nontrads and non-sci majors all entered the profession far more significantly once this shift away from numbers began. The field forty years ago was much more significantly male, white, bio majors. Today there are at least as many women as men in most med schools, and the number of non-white, non-male, non-bio majors is at an all time low. So if this was meant to be a Jim Crow law, it failed miserably.

There is a general perception that the bar is significantly higher for those from Asian communities. I'm fairly certain that if we moved to an admissions policy based solely on the MCAT for example, there would be a lot more yellow and brown med students in med school.

Why do you think so many applications have questions about your parents and their profession? They want the children of former doctors in med school so that the face of medicine doesn't change.

About your previous post, frankly surveys are not a good way to figure out what patients want. Yea, if a patient is being overwhelmed by a disease and has to deal with all the problems that come with it, he'll probably say "I just want to know what's going on!". Regardless, what he really wants is an effective treatment. And even if that isn't what he wants, we should still focus on outcomes rather than patient satisfaction.

Let me ask you this question - why do you think the decline of American medicine compared to other countries coincided with a shift in medical admissions criteria from scientific prowess to things like 'empathy', 'well-roundedness', etc.

Anyway, we're getting off-topic...

 

[bunnity]

I never applied or interviewed for med school so I can't comment on the scoring system.

BUT I did spend four years working a real job in a hospital and got to observe a lot of doctor-patient interactions. And I saw a lot of problems and a lot of miscommunication. Docs that were too rushed and too overconfident to listen. Docs without a grasp of colloquial spoken English that could not understand what patients were trying to say. No matter how great they were academically it did them no good if they could not or would not listen to the actual patient. The best doctor I worked with was very smart, went to Hopkins, all that, but the reason that he was the best doctor was that he would sit down with the patients and listen and talk with them, and actually pay attention to what they were saying before he made his diagnoses.

Now I know everyone going in thinks they are going to be great at talking to patients but you have to understand that you're talking to are
a) terrified
b) feel like crap
c) may not speak English as a first language
d) often old -> hard of hearing / one screw loose

So if you can't communicate with a calm, intelligent interviewer, there is no way you will be able to effectively communicate with a terrified 80 year old deaf French lady who thinks it's 1999. You have to be able to talk to people about their sex lives, drug use, and bathroom habits, and if they don't trust you or feel comfortable they will lie to you. You have to tease the truth out of people, break bad news to them, and educate them in a way they will understand and actually do something about. If you can't get a good history, what's the point of your differential diagnosis skills? If you can't convince a patient to take their meds, what's the point of your awesome treatment plans? I have seen so much poor communication from doctors because of exactly what L2D is talking about - people being selected regardless of their people skills.

 

[dingyibvs]

But definitely more experienced than us pre-meds. He has more credibility behind his posts than us, I would think. I think what he's saying makes a lot of sense.

His experience in medicine far, far exceed those of our own, but that has nothing to do with his knowledge on the medical school admissions process.

He seems to suggest that people are more or less on a level playing field once they're invited for an interview. That simply is NOT true. In fact, not even close. Sure, there are those with excellent stats and 10 interviews who do not get accepted anywhere. But it is VERY rare, and incidentally(note: not coincidentally), about as rare as being absolutely pathetic at interviews.

We need LizzyM to comment on this.

 

[dingyibvs]

There is a general perception that the bar is significantly higher for those from Asian communities. I'm fairly certain that if we moved to an admissions policy based solely on the MCAT for example, there would be a lot more yellow and brown med students in med school.

Why do you think so many applications have questions about your parents and their profession? They want the children of former doctors in med school so that the face of medicine doesn't change.

About your previous post, frankly surveys are not a good way to figure out what patients want. Yea, if a patient is being overwhelmed by a disease and has to deal with all the problems that come with it, he'll probably say "I just want to know what's going on!". Regardless, what he really wants is an effective treatment. And even if that isn't what he wants, we should still focus on outcomes rather than patient satisfaction.

Let me ask you this question - why do you think the decline of American medicine compared to other countries coincided with a shift in medical admissions criteria from scientific prowess to things like 'empathy', 'well-roundedness', etc.

Anyway, we're getting off-topic...

So the question really is this: as members of a service-oriented profession, do we best serve the people what they want or do we best serve them by giving them what they need?

 

[Law2Doc]

Med school interview isn't the same as a job interview. Rarely does a med school interview make or break an applicant unless you're utterly stupid or had a mental breakdown(Opposite in job interviews). Schools go out of their way to make the interviews comfortable and conversational. Most follow the same algorithms : why do want to be a doctor? What's your ECs like? And some social/ ethical questions....
Students put a lot of hype on the importance of a med interviews but at the end of the day, it is the admission committee not your interviewer that accepts you.

I have been out of school for 5 years and working multiples jobs during this time. My med school interviews are nowhere close to my job interviews. The stakes are vastly different.

Having had a career and having been on both sides of the interview desk before med school, I would suggest that the med school interview is a lot more like a private sector job interview than you suggest, with very similar stakes.