Adcom decision before the interview?

[flip26]

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.

I edited an earlier post and added the following which in light of your new post belongs here:

...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.

Rarely in med school interviews does an applicant meet with the sole decision maker in this process, unlike what usually happens in business interviews. Therefore, I disagree with you that business world and med school interviews are similar in this instance, although I agree that in both instances the stakes are quite high.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Law2Doc]

I edited an earlier post and added the following which in light of your new post belongs here:

...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.

Rarely in med school interviews does an applicant meet with the sole decision maker in this process, unlike what usually happens in business interviews. Therefore, I disagree with you that business world and med school interviews are similar in this instance.

You are simply wrong in the ways of the business world interviews. When I worked at a law firm I did a fair amount of interviewing and we still made decisions by committee, with interviewer input. That's EXACTLY what goes on here as well. I interviewed folks but certainly could not hire them on the spot, although my input could certainly make or break them if I felt strongly either way. That's simply the way it works in large organizations, like law firms, investment banks, major corporations, etc. these days. You RARELY are going to be interviewed by a single person with hiring authority. EXACTLY THE SAME AS MED SCHOOL. At a very small company or local shop, then sure, the dude who interviews perhaps you can hire you. When you interviewed for that job at the local sub shop while in college, sure, the dude with the manager name tag can hire you. But at a bigger organization, for a professional career (rather than a summer job), you'd expect to interview with multiple people, perhaps a panel of people, who will discuss you, perhaps have you back again for a call-back interview before, as a group, deciding to hire you. If you want to work at Merrell, Skadden, PWC, McKinsey, etc, for a job outside of the mail room or secretarial pool, you'd better believe you will have multiple interviews, and they will discuss the hell out of you before deciding, as a group, if you are in. That's the way the business world works, and some of us have been through it, and guess what -- it's EXACTLY the same with med schools. You aren't going to see the CEO who can hire you on the spot at a big place, any more than you are getting offered a seat on the spot at med school.

In med schools there are typically 4 kinds of interviewers. (1) deans and assistant deans, (2) clinicians, (3) non-clinical faculty (ie PhDs), and (4) students. Many places have you meeting with multiple categories of these, depending on scheduling. Of these, the biggest group tends to be clinicians. Some have more clout than others, but certainly if a dean or clinician likes or doesn't like you that can help or hurt you pretty significantly.

Anyhow, you can believe what you want, I don't really care. I suspect you will have a different view of the process later down the road. Good luck.

 

[flip26]

You are simply wrong in the ways of the business world interviews. When I worked at a law firm I did a fair amount of interviewing and we still made decisions by committee, with interviewer input. That's EXACTLY what goes on here as well. I interviewed folks but certainly could not hire them on the spot, although my input could certainly make or break them if I felt strongly either way. That's simply the way it works in large organizations, like law firms, investment banks, major corporations, etc. these days. You RARELY are going to be interviewed by a single person with hiring authority. EXACTLY THE SAME AS MED SCHOOL. At a very small company or local shop, then sure, the dude who interviews perhaps you can hire you. When you interviewed for that job at the local sub shop while in college, sure, the dude with the manager name tag can hire you. But at a bigger organization, for a professional career (rather than a summer job), you'd expect to interview with multiple people, perhaps a panel of people, who will discuss you, perhaps have you back again for a call-back interview before, as a group, deciding to hire you. If you want to work at Merrell, Skadden, PWC, McKinsey, etc, for a job outside of the mail room or secretarial pool, you'd better believe you will have multiple interviews, and they will discuss the hell out of you before deciding, as a group, if you are in. That's the way the business world works, and some of us have been through it, and guess what -- it's EXACTLY the same with med schools. You aren't going to see the CEO who can hire you on the spot at a big place, any more than you are getting offered a seat on the spot at med school.

In med schools there are typically 4 kinds of interviewers. (1) deans and assistant deans, (2) clinicians, (3) non-clinical faculty (ie PhDs), and (4) students. Many places have you meeting with multiple categories of these, depending on scheduling. Of these, the biggest group tends to be clinicians. Some have more clout than others, but certainly if a dean or clinician likes or doesn't like you that can help or hurt you pretty significantly.

Anyhow, you can believe what you want, I don't really care. I suspect you will have a different view of the process later down the road. Good luck.

Umm, I have held "professional / career" jobs at 2 very large multinationals, and at both I was hired at the interview on the spot by the decision maker.

My main argument with you is your contention that the playing field is commonly "leveled" at the interview stage in med school. I do not believe that is the case. I do believe that the interview is a critical element - fail here, and you can kiss the acceptance good bye - but I believe that the interview is still nothing more than a component of the 'accept / reject' decision which is arrived at post interview in a complete review of the applicant's file, LORs, etc.

 

[caniac]

Umm, I have held "professional / career" jobs at 2 very large multinationals, and at both I was hired at the interview on the spot by the decision maker.

My main argument with you is your contention that the playing field is commonly "leveled" at the interview stage in med school. I do not believe that is the case. I do believe that the interview is a critical element - fail here, and you can kiss the acceptance good bye - but I believe that the interview is still nothing more than a component of the 'accept / reject' decision which is arrived at post interview in a complete review of the applicant's file, LORs, etc.

that is rare.

we'll see in October (or later), but I think you underestimate the impact of a great interview upon a lackluster AMCAS. The same holds true for job interviews--they make or break you if your stats are on the fence.

 

[flip26]

that is rare.

we'll see in October (or later), but I think you underestimate the impact of a great interview upon a lackluster AMCAS. The same holds true for job interviews--they make or break you if your stats are on the fence.

Rare or not, I experienced it twice. Its a big world out there - L2D is not an authority on everything under the sun, even though he is a resident.

As for your example of the lackluster AMCAS applicant - umm, these people are not getting interviews in the first place. Pretty hard to shine in an interview that never takes place...there are simply too many qualified applicants for med schools to be interviewing substandard applicants.

 

[greatnt249]

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?

This is a false dichotomy; who says it has to be one or the other?

 

[Law2Doc]

Rare or not, I experienced it twice. Its a big world out there - ...

It is not the norm, and the fact that you aren't aware that most people go through more rigorous interview processes at multinationals, law firms, banks, etc makes we think it was not exactly a "professional" caliber job; but that's neither here nor there -- even if you didn't have this experience you ought to know what goes on in the private sector at other companies. Folks who are en route to becoming lawyers, accountants, bankers all will have multiple interviews and jobs will be doled out by committee, not on the spot.

At any rate the med school process is EXACTLY like what you might experience at a large number of large companies, law firms, accounting firms, consulting firms and banks. The fact that you had a unique experience doesn't exactly strengthen your point.

And I never said I was an authority at everything under the sun, but, having been around the block a few times and having had multiple careers, I have a decent amount of knowledge in a number of areas; If you've been through a process you simply will have more knowledge about it than someone who is just embarking on it -- that's all there is to it, and it's what makes SDN a useful resource -- because people who have been there can say what's what. If you think you know about something without even having experienced it, well, that's problematic...

 

[Law2Doc]

...
As for your example of the lackluster AMCAS applicant - umm, these people are not getting interviews in the first place. Pretty hard to shine in an interview that never takes place...there are simply too many qualified applicants for med schools to be interviewing substandard applicants.

Depends what you call lackluster. I'm saying the dude with, say, 3.5/31 who gets an interview is lackluster for some programs. That's hardly "substandard", more like average. But my point, is that when such person gets an interview, they have the opportunity to shine, and beat out folks with higher numbers. If they didn't, there wouldn't be any point for them to be interviewed at all. That this assumes such person gets an interview was obvious from the post. I'm at a loss for your confusion.

 

[flip26]

Depends what you call lackluster. I'm saying the dude with, say, 3.5/31 who gets an interview is lackluster for some programs. That's hardly "substandard", more like average. But my point, is that when such person gets an interview, they have the opportunity to shine, and beat out folks with higher numbers. If they didn't, there wouldn't be any point for them to be interviewed at all. That this assumes such person gets an interview was obvious from the post. I'm at a loss for your confusion.

My post questioning "lackluster" applicants even getting to the interview stage was directed at someone else, not you...so I am at a loss for your confusion.

If by your definition 3.5/31 is lackluster, there are a lot of lackluster applicants out there.

 

[Law2Doc]

My post questioning "lackluster" applicants even getting to the interview stage was directed at someone else, not you...so I am at a loss for your confusion.

If by your definition 3.5/31 is lackluster, there are a lot of lackluster applicants out there.

Not lackluster in general, just lackluster for the top programs. Sorry that I responded to a comment meant for someone else, but when part of your post references me, it's an honest mistake. But nonetheless I think the point is still that some folks who make it through to the interview stage have better numbers than others. What happens after that -- you know my view from the above posts.
Good luck with the process.

 

[MegaProjectile]

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.

May be it's different in the legal field but for regular private sector and blue collar jobs , you are interviewed mostly by the person that has the power to give you the job. Every movement and gesture can create a positive or negative impression that can go directly to their hiring of you.I know leaving a job interview if I got the job or not. They don't tell you explicitly due to formality(have to interview a set number of people first). But being hired on the spot is not a rarity. It happens everyday.

In med school interviews, the ad com can't see you or hear your nervous answers. They only know what your interviewer wrote down on your application and if you were recommended or not. If you give good answers and act normal you'll be fine. At job interviews, good answers are not enough:charisma, physical looks, speaking skills ALL COME INTO PLAY.

Med school interviews are part of your overall assessment. I was told this by four deans where I've interviewed. We are all not on some even level field.

At job interviews everyone comes in more or less equal and it is the interview that determines your fate. Hence, the stakes are vastly different.

 

[flip26]

It is not the norm, and the fact that you aren't aware that most people go through more rigorous interview processes at multinationals, law firms, banks, etc makes we think it was not exactly a "professional" caliber job; but that's neither here nor there -- even if you didn't have this experience you ought to know what goes on in the private sector at other companies. Folks who are en route to becoming lawyers, accountants, bankers all will have multiple interviews and jobs will be doled out by committee, not on the spot.

At any rate the med school process is EXACTLY like what you might experience at a large number of large companies, law firms, accounting firms, consulting firms and banks. The fact that you had a unique experience doesn't exactly strengthen your point.

And I never said I was an authority at everything under the sun, but, having been around the block a few times and having had multiple careers, I have a decent amount of knowledge in a number of areas; If you've been through a process you simply will have more knowledge about it than someone who is just embarking on it -- that's all there is to it, and it's what makes SDN a useful resource -- because people who have been there can say what's what. If you think you know about something without even having experienced it, well, that's problematic...

Whatever, dude - no pissin' contest from me over who has had a "professional" job. You are not the only nontrad on these boards who has had multiple careers...and multiple real world experiences.

I find it interesting that you are now stressing the committee approach to decisions which seems to be in direct contrast with your contention that the interview is the determining factor...so which is it? Does the committee that meets post interview simply rubber stamp the 'accept/reject' opinion of the interviewer as would be the case with your "level playing field" theory, or does the committee do as I suggest: review the entire file of the applicant with the interview considered as one component of the decision making process?

Clearly an extreme opinion by an interviewer could sway the decision, positively or negatively. It is for this reason that many if not most schools use multiple interviews in case the interviewer had a "bad day" or whatever. At one school I have already interviewed, applicants are told that if they feel the interview was unsatisfactory for any reason that one should return to the office and request another interview.

But I do not believe that the playing field is really ever level at any point in this process. The interview is potentially too subjective a component to be the determining factor in a process that must take into consideration the whole person.

Besides, one more difference with the real world: if the business makes a "mistake" based on the interview and has hired the wrong person, they have a simple solution - they fire him. Med schools can't exactly fire an accepted applicant.

 

[Simplify]

At job interviews, good answers are not enough:charisma, physical looks, speaking skills ALL COME INTO PLAY.

Med school interviews are part of your overall assessment. I was told this by four deans where I've interviewed. We are all not on some even level field.

At job interviews everyone comes in more or less equal and it is the interview that determines your fate. Hence, the stakes are vastly different.

If you think for a second that charisma, physical looks and speaking skills aren't a factor in most med school interviews you'd be mistaken. Numerous studies have supported bias for these kinds of traits. You think everyone has equal footing in a job interviewl? You can't be serious. Have you ever heard of job experience? Well, that varies and it can obviously be important.

In my experience interviewing for high paying jobs at large companies you are never hired on the spot. Any serious job at a large firm with a white collar wage is going to extend you an offer letter with financial terms for your review prior to acceptance. There are often multiple interviews and I've even had working interviews.

There are always exceptions. There are probably a handful of schools that don't put as much emphasis on the interview, but that still does not imply that the interview isn't important. Even if it's only worth 15-20% of the total score, I think you can see how a poor interview can put you out of the running. I think it's hard for some folks here to come to terms with the fact that their stats do not guarantee admission.

 

[caniac]

If you think for a second that charisma, physical looks and speaking skills aren't a factor in most med school interviews you'd be mistaken. Numerous studies have supported bias for these kinds of traits. You think everyone has equal footing in a job interviewl? You can't be serious. Have you ever heard of job experience? Well, that varies and it can obviously be important.

In my experience interviewing for high paying jobs at large companies you are never hired on the spot. Any serious job at a large firm with a white collar wage is going to extend you an offer letter with financial terms for your review prior to acceptance. There are often multiple interviews and I've even had working interviews.

There are always exceptions. There are probably a handful of schools that don't put as much emphasis on the interview, but that still does not imply that the interview isn't important. Even if it's only worth 15-20% of the total score, I think you can see how a poor interview can put you out of the running. I think it's hard for some folks here to come to terms with the fact that their stats do not guarantee admission.

this. Coming from consulting, with parents/uncles in finance, insurance, and IT -- that's how they all do business. I wasn't expecting it to be so similar, but from my experience this cycle, it's how med schools do business as well...

 

[zerial]

If we were all on a level field walking into the interview, I would think the interviewers at a lot of schools would be a lot harder on us in the interview, to be able to differentiate the pack more.

And they wouldn't be telling everyone "your interview is just 1 aspect of your entire application that will be considered" which I have heard multiple times on the interview trail already.

 

[Spiker]

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'.

Yes, that is why competence is the number 1 thing on AMA principle of ethics. And it also depend on the field I guess. If I am in ER I dont care if the person is the biggest ******* in the world as long as he is the best in the field. However, if I have terminal cancer that may be a different story.

 

[zerial]

frankly, a lot of what has been said here has been speculation

the following is NOT speculation: (AMCAS likes to put FACTS in all caps to remind us of that)

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/mcatgpa-grid-3yrs-app-accpt.htm


let's be honest with ourselves. after looking at that table, it would be VERY hard to argue that everyone is on a level playing field for the majority of schools once they receive an interview.

 

[BBender716]

this. Coming from consulting, with parents/uncles in finance, insurance, and IT -- that's how they all do business. I wasn't expecting it to be so similar, but from my experience this cycle, it's how med schools do business as well...

I did my fair share of management consulting interviews and let me say, if you can do those or i-banking interviews, you can do any job/med school interview.

They put everyone on a level playing field but have a multi-tiered interview process. Once selected for an interview (based on stats + experience), you are level with everyone else. After passing those 2-3 interviews, you are solely evaluated on interview performance then selected for second rounds at the city HQ where you have another 4-5. Then the 4-5 talk about your interviews and decide whether or not to extend an offer.

What the point is, is that if the interview were the ONLY thing considered at that point, you would expect to see a system more like the one above-- more people interviewing you, more rounds, and definitely more stressful. I'm surprised (to my knowledge) that no one has brought up the AAMC survey that asked med schools what factors were most important pre and post interview.

Post-Interview
1. Interviewer Recommendation
2. sGPA
3. cGPA

However, the interviewer recommendation is rated significantly more important than everything else on the list. For instance, cGPA is only .4 more weighted than clinical volunteering on the pre-interview factors list. But interviewer recommendation is a whopping .8 more than the next closest factor (LORs) and .9 over the next two. Feel free to examine. Enjoy!

http://www.aamc.org/members/gsa/meetings/holisticreview.pdf

 

[Substance P]

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

It can be worth more in some instances. I know of one school in particular that places 75% of the admissions decisions, post-interview, on the interview itself. So that means, once you make the initial cut, the interview can either seal or break the deal.

 

[BlueElmo]

I think the whole point of this thread is, once you get that interivew invite, just do as well as you can and take it very seriously. Because, frankly, after the interview, not a whole lot you can do until the decision.

 

[zerial]

i think the whole point of this thread is, once you get that interivew invite, just do as well as you can and take it very seriously. Because, frankly, after the interview, not a whole lot you can do until the decision.

+1

 

[MegaProjectile]

If you think for a second that charisma, physical looks and speaking skills aren't a factor in most med school interviews you'd be mistaken. Numerous studies have supported bias for these kinds of traits. You think everyone has equal footing in a job interview? You can't be serious. Have you ever heard of job experience? Well, that varies and it can obviously be important.

Apples and oranges.How many students were accepted to medical school solely based on looks? You might impress your interviewers but don't think for a second that it will nullify your 2.9 GPA when it goes before the ad com(they didn't even get to see you anyway). In the private sector, physical looks can make a huge component into being hired or denied since the person that has the power to hire you is right across the table from you. We all know someone that got a job because of their bust size.

To your other point, you cannot be interviewed for a job if you don't have the experience or qualification.

In my experience interviewing for high paying jobs at large companies you are never hired on the spot. Any serious job at a large firm with a white collar wage is going to extend you an offer letter with financial terms for your review prior to acceptance. There are often multiple interviews and I've even had working interviews.

Again apples and oranges. Whether you are hired on the spot or one month later is irrelevant. The person that interviewed you had it in their power to hire or deny you and it is at the interview where that decision is made. Whether you are told about it or not. They usually don't tell you because of legal purposes(they have to first interview X number of people).

There are always exceptions. There are probably a handful of schools that don't put as much emphasis on the interview, but that still does not imply that the interview isn't important. Even if it's only worth 15-20% of the total score, I think you can see how a poor interview can put you out of the running. I think it's hard for some folks here to come to terms with the fact that their stats do not guarantee admission.

I never said med school interviews are not important. It's an integral part of your application so it should be taken seriously. But is it the end-be-all? No. Each year, many students that had horrible interviews get accepted to med school. Horrible interview for a private sector job? Your odds are about the same as winning the Olympics.

 

[greatnt249]

Yes, that is why competence is the number 1 thing on AMA principle of ethics. And it also depend on the field I guess. If I am in ER I dont care if the person is the biggest ******* in the world as long as he is the best in the field. However, if I have terminal cancer that may be a different story.

I love how people go on about such attributes as if they're mutually exclusive from one another, as if you have to choose between the "nice" doctor and the "competent" doctor.

 

[flip26]

What the point is, is that if the interview were the ONLY thing considered at that point, you would expect to see a system more like the one above-- more people interviewing you, more rounds, and definitely more stressful. I'm surprised (to my knowledge) that no one has brought up the AAMC survey that asked med schools what factors were most important pre and post interview.

http://www.aamc.org/members/gsa/meetings/holisticreview.pdf

Never seen it before (it is dated 2009, so it is evidently fairly recent).

This totally supports my contention that the whole package comes into play in making the decision - hell, the PDF is entitled "Holistic Admissions" which is exactly what I am arguing.

And I agree with you that if it really all boiled down to the interview as L2D and others opine, the interview process would be much more standardized and extensive.

I love, too, that grades > MCAT in this survey. Talk about another issue people argue passionately about.

OK, L2D - your turn!

 

[flip26]

It can be worth more in some instances. I know of one school in particular that places 75% of the admissions decisions, post-interview, on the interview itself. So that means, once you make the initial cut, the interview can either seal or break the deal.

Umm, any reason you are keeping this school a secret from us?

 

[Substance P]

If we were all on a level field walking into the interview, I would think the interviewers at a lot of schools would be a lot harder on us in the interview, to be able to differentiate the pack more.

And they wouldn't be telling everyone "your interview is just 1 aspect of your entire application that will be considered" which I have heard multiple times on the interview trail already.

The interview is one aspect of your application, BUT the emphasis or importance level of that one factor varies by school. At some it is very important and at some it is less important, but at all schools it is just one aspect.

frankly, a lot of what has been said here has been speculation

the following is NOT speculation: (AMCAS likes to put FACTS in all caps to remind us of that)

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/mcatgpa-grid-3yrs-app-accpt.htm


let's be honest with ourselves. after looking at that table, it would be VERY hard to argue that everyone is on a level playing field for the majority of schools once they receive an interview.

Facts are easy to misinterpret and misunderstand. Isn't it plausible that students with higher stats were granted more interviews than those with lower stats? Well, then it would only make sense that their acceptance rate is higher. It's not that the interview is irrelevant it's that those who are getting the interviews have higher stats. Everyone will face the interview committee and they don't just waste their time and yours having interviews. They have them to ensure you're a good fit for their program, you have a passion for medicine, and so that they can get a sense as to whether or not you know what the hell you're getting into.

I think to argue that the interview is unimportant is ridiculous.

 

[flip26]

I think to argue that the interview is unimportant is ridiculous.

Who on this thread has argued that?

Everything is important.

 

[Substance P]

Umm, any reason you are keeping this school a secret from us?

Nope. I've stated it before in the past. It's the University of Colorado. They tell you point blank if you don't get in and you attend their information session for those waitlisted. They also give you your stats and how they compare to those of the other applicants along with a note from the dean as to why you did not get in. I had two friends last year that were in the top 5 and 10% of applicants at the school and both were rejected as a direct result of the interview. I had a friend the year before who was rejected in the top 5% as a result of his interview as well. This is not speculation, it is directly from the horses mouth.

 

[flip26]

Nope. I've stated it before in the past. It's the University of Colorado. They tell you point blank if you don't get in and you attend their information session for those waitlisted. They also give you your stats and how they compare to those of the other applicants along with a note from the dean as to why you did not get in. I had two friends last year that were in the top 5 and 10% of applicants at the school and both were rejected as a direct result of the interview. I had a friend the year before who was rejected in the top 5% as a result of his interview as well. This is not speculation, it is directly from the horses mouth.

That is highly unusual, a note saying why you did not get in. Most schools avoid even saying that, much less putting it into writing.

 

[MegaProjectile]

I think to argue that the interview is unimportant is ridiculous.

No one is arguing that. Interviews are important but they are part of the process not the end-be-all as some have stated here. Walking into an interview thinking you are in equal footing with other applicants is not supported by statements from AAMC or Deans of schools where I have interviewed at. Your ECs, MCAT, GPA, LORs, and interview is what determines your acceptance.

 

[brooklynblunder]

what do u have to do at the interview to get rejected


interviews are pretty frigging relaxed

 

[Substance P]

Never seen it before (it is dated 2009, so it is evidently fairly recent).

This totally supports my contention that the whole package comes into play in making the decision - hell, the PDF is entitled "Holistic Admissions" which is exactly what I am arguing.

And I agree with you that if it really all boiled down to the interview as L2D and others opine, the interview process would be much more standardized and extensive.

I love, too, that grades > MCAT in this survey. Talk about another issue people argue passionately about.

OK, L2D - your turn!

I don't think anyone is saying that it all boils down to the interview. They are simply saying that the interview is an important part of the application process, which is the point of this thread...

The AAMC clearly expresses that:

Pg. 8 "Holistic Review"

What application data do
admissions committees use?
• Admissions committees use a wide range of
academic and experiential data in deciding
which applicants to interview.
• They do the same in making offers of
acceptance. Interview ratings and letters of
recommendation are very important.

That alone answers the OP's questions, which it sounds like you were debating. If you aren't then this debate is not worth the time it would take for any of us to write a response. I'm glad you see that the interview is an important part of the process.

 

[Substance P]

That is highly unusual, a note saying why you did not get in. Most schools avoid even saying that, much less putting it into writing.

It doesn't matter whether it's unusual or not. That has zero relevance to the argument. The point is that they include it and you can glean very useful information from it, such as the importance of the interview.

 

[flip26]

I don't think anyone is saying that it all boils down to the interview...That alone answers the OP's questions, which it sounds like you were debating. If you aren't then this debate is not worth the time it would take for any of us to write a response. I'm glad you see that the interview is an important part of the process.

Read the last couple of pages of the thread and you will see that my argument has been with one other poster, Law2Doc. He most definitely believes it all boils down to the interview, and I disagree with him on that.

And there are plenty of folks on this thread who have put him on a pedestal of sorts since he is a resident and therefore he must know more about the admissions process than any of us can.

 

[flip26]

It doesn't matter whether it's unusual or not. That has zero relevance to the argument. The point is that they include it and you can glean very useful information from it, such as the importance of the interview.

I wasn't challenging anything you said, just noting that schools typically do not give any concrete reasons to applicants as to why they were rejected.

 

[Substance P]

You both have the same question, so here you go:

Who on this thread has argued that?

Everything is important.

No one is arguing that. Interviews are important but they are part of the process not the end-be-all as some have stated here. Walking into an interview thinking you are in equal footing with other applicants is not supported by statements from AAMC or Deans of schools where I have interviewed at. Your ECs, MCAT, GPA, LORs, and interview is what determines your acceptance.

The OP's initial question

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?

Implied by this statement/question:

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?

Btw, GTV, the best way to get someone (possibly an interviewer) to like you is to get them to talk about themselves. If you are good at this trick people will like you and they won't even know why.

Definitely implied by this statement:

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.

 

[ChiDO]

Interviews for professional jobs usually work like this:

Send in application/CV/ect.
Invite for Interview 1 w/ HR
If Iview #1 = good, recommend for #2 interview
2-3 days later, invite for interview 2 w/ "CEO/CFO/Regional Manager/ect"
If Iview #2 = good, compare applicant with others from iview #2
2-3 days later (or longer) = send offer letter

 

[Substance P]

Read the last couple of pages of the thread and you will see that my argument has been with one other poster, Law2Doc. He most definitely believes it all boils down to the interview, and I disagree with him on that.

And there are plenty of folks on this thread who have put him on a pedestal of sorts since he is a resident and therefore he must know more about the admissions process than any of us can.

I don't know why you think I'm making all these statements to you... I'm posting on a public forum for everyone to see, not just you. I made my comment to you then spaced my secondary comment earlier and I'm thinking you are taking it personally or as an attack. I am not trying to give that impression, but rather am trying to elucidate the alternative perspective where I can vouch for the interview being extremely important.

I also don't think Law2Doc was implying that once you get an interview everything is equalized, because that just doesn't make sense. What he is saying is that it carries a lot of weight and it can just as easily make someone stand out as an above average candidate and/or make someone appear as a substandard candidate even if neither are representative of that specific view on paper. This is another reason for closed file interviews, so that candidates can be evaluated without the bias of numbers.

I also don't think people value Law2Doc's opinion simply because he is a resident, but rather because he is a nontraditional student and has had a major career change, which gives him solid real world experience, professional experience, and the medical application/med school experience. This is a lot more than most high school -> college -> Med -> Residency students have, because they have still never experiences the world from outside of the bubble they have been raised in.

I wasn't challenging anything you said, just noting that schools typically do not give any concrete reasons to applicants as to why they were rejected.

That's cool. I just didn't understand the relevance of what you posted.

 

[flip26]

I don't know why you think I'm making all these statements to you... I'm posting on a public forum for everyone to see, not just you. I made my comment to you then spaced my secondary comment earlier and I'm thinking you are taking it personally or as an attack. I am not trying to give that impression, but rather am trying to elucidate the alternative perspective where I can vouch for the interview being extremely important.

I also don't think Law2Doc was implying that once you get an interview everything is equalized, because that just doesn't make sense. What he is saying is that it carries a lot of weight and it can just as easily make someone stand out as an above average candidate and/or make someone appear as a substandard candidate even if neither are representative of that specific view on paper. This is another reason for closed file interviews, so that candidates can be evaluated without the bias of numbers.

I also don't think people value Law2Doc's opinion simply because he is a resident, but rather because he is a nontraditional student and has had a major career change, which gives him solid real world experience, professional experience, and the medical application/med school experience. This is a lot more than most high school -> college -> Med -> Residency students have, because they have still never experiences the world from outside of the bubble they have been raised in.

Well, you quoted my post and then made your comments, so it is kind of hard to see how you were not refuting something I said. If you simply want to enter a thread and make a statement, but you do not want to challenge another poster, just write your post and leave him/her out of it - i.e., don't quote someone and not expect them to comment in return.

Law2Doc has been very clear on this issue: he believes that the playing field is leveled once you get to the interview, and the interview therefore is the determining factor in accept/reject decisions.

Finally, a couple of people on the thread have accepted his premise simply because he is a resident as opposed to a premed, in the faulty assumption that a resident must know more about the process than every premed.

 

[BlueElmo]

I think I read L2D say he was on both sides of the interview table in his career so far. That's more than where you have been flip, he probably understands the process more than you.

 

[Law2Doc]

...
I find it interesting that you are now stressing the committee approach to decisions which seems to be in direct contrast with your contention that the interview is the determining factor...so which is it? Does the committee that meets post interview simply rubber stamp the 'accept/reject' opinion of the interviewer as would be the case with your "level playing field" theory, or does the committee do as I suggest: review the entire file of the applicant with the interview considered as one component of the decision making process?
...

If you read above you will see that I outlined three types of processes common at programs -- those where the interview is the only game in town, that where the interview is the single greatest factor, and those where it is an important factor. In all of these, the interviewer comes back to the group and weighs in, in only the third does the rest of the application have to be reconsidered. Having the interview decide the game doesn't negate committee process -- neither in med school nor in the business world. It's totally consistent. In the first two, if the interviewer tells the group X was great, Y was not, and Z was in between, then the group has to also listen to all the other interviewers, and put together a pile of Xs for admission, Zs for rejection and Ys for waitlisting. If the number of Xs are too great, then there is a system to decide which Xs get the nod and which get waitlisted. Might turn on degrees on great, whether interviewer #1 felt more strongly about his applicant than interviewer #2 and so on. But there will still be a system -- nobody gets an offer on the spot, just like they wouldn't in a white collar interview. I think we've beaten this topic to death.

 

[brooklynblunder]

ok, so how does one **** up an interview. you gotta be pretty douchebaggish or unknowledgeable

 

[flip26]

I think I read L2D say he was on both sides of the interview table in his career so far. That's more than where you have been flip, he probably understands the process more than you.

How do you know this? I have worked in high paying white collar professional jobs in 2 different multinational corporations, and I have been interviewed, and have interviewed candidates for jobs, too. So are we back to a nontrad pissin' contest again?

Everything matters in the final decision, not just one factor. L2D can't point to any empirical evidence for what he is saying, just that he "knows it" to be the case.

The survey posted a little higher in the thread surely sheds some much needed light on this, but I guess you prefer to go with the opinion of a resident over a survey of all the medical schools?

 

[Law2Doc]

May be it's different in the legal field but for regular private sector and blue collar jobs , you are interviewed mostly by the person that has the power to give you the job. ....

You have to compare it to white collar profession, not a blue collar job, because physician is very much a white collar profession. So you need to compare it to law, banking, consulting, accounting, etc. In all those cases the interviewer isn't going to hire you on the spot, and they generally hire and fire by committee. It's not like the blue collar one man operation, or whatever a lot of premeds have seen when getting summer jobs -- the professional world spends a lot more time and effort deciding who to take and who not. And so yes, medical school interviews are very much like what you might face in the PROFESSIONAL private sector.

 

[flip26]

If you read above you will see that I outlined three types of processes common at programs -- those where the interview is the only game in town, that where the interview is the single greatest factor, and those where it is an important factor. In all of these, the interviewer comes back to the group and weighs in, in only the third does the rest of the application have to be reconsidered. Having the interview decide the game doesn't negate committee process -- neither in med school nor in the business world. It's totally consistent. In the first two, if the interviewer tells the group X was great, Y was not, and Z was in between, then the group has to also listen to all the other interviewers, and put together a pile of Xs for admission, Zs for rejection and Ys for waitlisting. If the number of Xs are too great, then there is a system to decide which Xs get the nod and which get waitlisted. Might turn on degrees on great, whether interviewer #1 felt more strongly about his applicant than interviewer #2 and so on. But there will still be a system -- nobody gets an offer on the spot, just like they wouldn't in a white collar interview. I think we've beaten this topic to death.

Dude, my example speaks for itself - you are simply wrong here - people DO get offered high paying white collar professional jobs on the spot - it has happened to me twice.

Your 3 systems theory originally said the most common of the 3 systems is the "level playing field" scenario - I acknowledged then and now that I am sure some schools do it this way, but in no way do i believe it is the most common system or the way it is done at most schools as you have stated, and the AAMC survey someone else posted above supports my opinion that this is a multifaceted decision making process, not yours.

 

[MegaProjectile]

ok, so how does one **** up an interview. you gotta be pretty douchebaggish or unknowledgeable

. Agree.

 

[BlueElmo]

ok, so how does one **** up an interview. you gotta be pretty douchebaggish or unknowledgeable

Well, just as long as you don't act like Kumar, you're good to go.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoK7MqQVU14[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Substance P]

Well, you quoted my post and then made your comments, so it is kind of hard to see how you were not refuting something I said. If you simply want to enter a thread and make a statement, but you do not want to challenge another poster, just write your post and leave him/her out of it - i.e., don't quote someone and not expect them to comment in return.

Law2Doc has been very clear on this issue: he believes that the playing field is leveled once you get to the interview, and the interview therefore is the determining factor in accept/reject decisions.

Finally, a couple of people on the thread have accepted his premise simply because he is a resident as opposed to a premed, in the faulty assumption that a resident must know more about the process than every premed.

I just went back through my posts and don't see where I quoted you and challenged you... You are very defensive and I'm not sure why. Thanks for your etiquette tips though...

I would like to hear your experience, since by default you are implying that you are the said pre-med he doesn't know more than. Please fill us in on your experiences. We are all fairly well versed on L2D's, which, once again, is part of the reason why people value his opinions.

 

[Law2Doc]

...
Everything matters in the final decision, not just one factor. L2D can't point to any empirical evidence for what he is saying, just that he "knows it" to be the case.

The survey posted a little higher in the thread surely sheds some much needed light on this, but I guess you prefer to go with the opinion of a resident over a survey of all the medical schools?

Just meet with multiple adcoms/former adcoms at multiple schools, and you will get all the evidence you need. That's how some of us did it when applying (and if you are truly a career changer, I would suggest from experience that you will have an easier time getting an audience than the average college age premed). There isn't going to be empirical evidence published on this topic. It's very silly to say -- show me a link that says that. For something external and scientific, that's fine, this should be documentable. For internal workings of an admission committee (or really any behind doors, nontransparent committee), I promise you nothing useful ever gets published. It's all word of mouth. So find yourself an authoritative source or two and start talking. That's how some of us did it.
Again, I don't care what you believe, and if you don't like what I'm saying, find someone else's threads to read. Don't spend time posting about how I'm not an authority on everything. Find yourself an authority yourself.

 

[Substance P]

ok, so how does one **** up an interview. you gotta be pretty douchebaggish or unknowledgeable

Or not project a passion for medicine, which can be a difficult thing to convey. Even if you are friendly and the interviewer doesn't get a sense you know what you are getting into or you don't have good reasons for wanting to do it, then you become unconvincing, which is probably a very common occurrence for individuals that are very introverted or socially awkward. I don't imagine you would have any of these issues based on your previous posts, but that's not to say that others don't.