Adcoms, what percentage of interviewees would you say can't hold a conversation?

Get Your Med School Admissions Questions Answered!
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Can they hold my "conversation"?

Watch This Hold Up GIF by Apple TV

Student Uni GIF by Hochschule Osnabrück – University of Applied Sciences
 
Last edited:
sarcasmrules said:
Rats. I was hoping 20%+. Oh well,
Click to expand...
To make it to the interview, they have to pass the screening. So their writing has to be acceptable, they need to show adequate hours of experiences, and their LOR have to be good. People with terrible communication skills are usually screened out by lacking one of these things.
 
OP: remember this is a selective process. You would hope that if admissions does its job right, the number of people you get who can't communicate well will be smaller. You're not competing against just your peers in your freshman chemistry class. Everyone at the interview phase SHOULD be prepared and polished. As I remind my faculty during training, you will interview people who WILL be doctors. All you need to do is agree with the screeners'/committee's initial assessment (simplistically). We may fall short 5% or fewer times, but that means 1 out of 20 interviewed candidates are somehow subpar or had a bad day. And we on the admissions team will know when we have fallen short.

The interviewees are likely to be among the top 10-15% of the applicant pool, and the level of preparation should be reflected appropriately.
 
So it sounds like the interview process doesn't really impact your chance of being accepted unless you fall into the 2-5% that fell through the cracks and is predominantly determined by your application rating?
 
surelycalm said:
So it sounds like the interview process doesn't really impact your chance of being accepted unless you fall into the 2-5% that fell through the cracks and is predominantly determined by your application rating?
Click to expand...

And at the other end, those who are okay on paper but really wow the interviewers and move up in the rankings on the basis of the interview.
 
On the other hand, what percent of interviewers would you say can't hold a conversation and how do you take this into account when evaluating applicants?
 
murphyschmurphy said:
On the other hand, what percent of interviewers would you say can't hold a conversation and how do you take this into account when evaluating applicants?
Click to expand...
I think you are overthinking it a bit. In any job, how do you think we would take such a characteristic when it comes to reviewing a candidate? How do you believe it would be different for a candidate for a patient-facing position? For a doctor? Stop believing this process to be a pure science.

As for interviewers, it is our responsibility to train them, and we know they become the face of our program in any such interview. We monitor feedback as carefully as we can, but we let our admissions committee leadership decide what to do if there is a challenge (such as interviewers that can't hold conversations). For much smaller programs, we are limited to the people who volunteer for us, but they all have to be trained annually.

I try to have a relationship and interact with every interviewer (if it's a small program). I ask them what they look for and what turns them off. It helps me because I understand how important they are to the process and how it can be energizing to meet new people who could be potential mentees. The admissions dean is responsible for such recruitment on the faculty side and getting them trained to our feedback forms and systems is the director's job.

Of course with MMI's, it's not as much of a problem since they should be going on their scripted questions (in my process), not going off extemporaneously.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Smile12 said:
I think you are overthinking it a bit. In any job, how do you think we would take such a characteristic when it comes to reviewing a candidate? How do you believe it would be different for a candidate for a patient-facing position? For a doctor? Stop believing this process to be a pure science.

As for interviewers, it is our responsibility to train them, and we know they become the face of our program in any such interview. We monitor feedback as carefully as we can, but we let our admissions committee leadership decide what to do if there is a challenge (such as interviewers that can't hold conversations). For much smaller programs, we are limited to the people who volunteer for us, but they all have to be trained annually.

I try to have a relationship and interact with every interviewer (if it's a small program). I ask them what they look for and what turns them off. It helps me because I understand how important they are to the process and how it can be energizing to meet new people who could be potential mentees. The admissions dean is responsible for such recruitment on the faculty side and getting them trained to our feedback forms and systems is the director's job.

Of course with MMI's, it's not as much of a problem since they should be going on their scripted questions (in my process), not going off extemporaneously.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your response, and I appreciate your time. I apologize for coming across as overthinking, as I was merely curious.
 
No problem. 🙂

To pre-emptively address the question on what to do if you have student ambassadors who can't hold conversations...
www.studentdoctor.net

Student Leaders and Ambassadors: Bringing Out the Best | SDN

Applicants greatly rely on the perspective of peers who are a few years further along in their education when it comes to making decisions on a career
www.studentdoctor.net www.studentdoctor.net
 
surelycalm said:
So it sounds like the interview process doesn't really impact your chance of being accepted unless you fall into the 2-5% that fell through the cracks and is predominantly determined by your application rating?
Click to expand...
I don't think I can simplify it that way. It truly depends on the "interview" format. How you communicate differs among 1-1 interviews, 2-1 or 3-1 interviews, 1-2/2-2/3-2 group interviews, jungle interviews (1-n), MMI's, or team exercises. It also depends if a school has more strict criteria to place applicants on various steps/levels/priorities for an offer.

Mission fit.
www.studentdoctor.net

Mission Fit: Key to Your Success | SDN

Every application cycle, applicants request expert reviews on the Student Doctor Network to help them assess “What Are My Chances” (WAMC) at getting
www.studentdoctor.net www.studentdoctor.net
 
Interviews is a skill. Having a conversation is a skill. Being a doctor is a skill. All skills can be learned and improved on. Practicing conversation skills is not only important for the interview but for your future career as a doctor
 
LunaOri said:
To make it to the interview, they have to pass the screening. So their writing has to be acceptable, they need to show adequate hours of experiences, and their LOR have to be good. People with terrible communication skills are usually screened out by lacking one of these things.
Click to expand...
I mean - depends on what you define as terrible. You can probably get decent LORs if you have bad communication skills but are very kind and hardworking and an excellent student. Same with writing skills - you can get help with that or be a good, even excellent writer with bad social skills.

What do great interviewers look like? As distinct from people who do well at interview; someone who has average skills but was an Olympic athlete or US Marine or something will tend to interview very well. I'm wondering about a vanilla, run-of-the-mill premed that had a passion for acting or opera or something but wasn't quite good enough to be professional...
 
To me the big question is why do schools invite so many people to interview if only 5-10% get rejected due to the interview. It seems like it would be a better usage of everyone's time if 70% of people interviewed got an acceptance. Why is it well below 50% for most schools, many in the 30% range?
 
LeaveNoTrace said:
I mean - depends on what you define as terrible. You can probably get decent LORs if you have bad communication skills but are very kind and hardworking and an excellent student. Same with writing skills - you can get help with that or be a good, even excellent writer with bad social skills.

What do great interviewers look like? As distinct from people who do well at interview; someone who has average skills but was an Olympic athlete or US Marine or something will tend to interview very well. I'm wondering about a vanilla, run-of-the-mill premed that had a passion for acting or opera or something but wasn't quite good enough to be professional...
Click to expand...
Not looking to review the accomplishments in the interview. I want to see someone personable, thoughtful, with good insight and good communication skills. Applicants who have done theater, or who have a lot of experience in public-facing jobs (think customer service or waitstaff) usually perform well in interviews.
 
surelycalm said:
To me the big question is why do schools invite so many people to interview if only 5-10% get rejected due to the interview. It seems like it would be a better usage of everyone's time if 70% of people interviewed got an acceptance. Why is it well below 50% for most schools, many in the 30% range?
Click to expand...
You tell me how to pick the applicants to interview when I would have 200 fewer interview slots than I have now so I could make offers to 70% of the pool. It is already a emotionally painful process to whittle the number of applicants down to the small proportion who can be interviewed given our resources (mainly willing faculty to do interviews). Cutting back even more would be excruciating and would not be fun for applicants who would be competing for a shrinking number of interview slots.
 
surelycalm said:
To me the big question is why do schools invite so many people to interview if only 5-10% get rejected due to the interview. It seems like it would be a better usage of everyone's time if 70% of people interviewed got an acceptance. Why is it well below 50% for most schools, many in the 30% range?
Click to expand...
It's for the same reason airlines overbook seats: To make sure all seats are filled, but not so much that you have to give vouchers to al the overbooked who can get a seat.

Admissions Deans have worked things out to a Black Art as to how many people to accept because the know from historic norms how many acceptees "melt", ie, go elsewhere.

Ditto for the size of the Olympic or pro sports teams; you only have so many seats.
 
pink_panther said:
kind of related question for both you and @LizzyM or anyone else that wants to jump in

how does a school like harvard or WashU or something with like a 25% post-II acceptance rate filter through so many qualified applicants? is it the same staircase analogy LM always talks about?

like assuming (and maybe I'm wrong) that all 100% of the interviewees are qualified on paper, and based on this thread, that let's say 70-80% are comfortable/well talking people, how do you wittle that down to 25%?

thanks
Click to expand...
Yes, in general the staircase analogy would still work.

Read
www.studentdoctor.net

From Waitlist to Offer: Inside an Admissions Committee | SDN

You are finally done with your interviews, so let the waiting games begin! In March, health professions programs will begin securing seats for the next
www.studentdoctor.net www.studentdoctor.net

Of course, there's always a lottery (not yet in the US).
www.thestar.com

Queen’s University introduces lottery to competitive medical school admissions

Students hoping to gain acceptance to the MD program beginning September 2025 will, if they meet set admission thresholds, be placed in a lottery to determine who gets invited to an interview.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Rationales for a Lottery Among the Qualified to Select Medical Trainees: Decades of Dutch Experience

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
Goro said:
It's for the same reason airlines overbook seats: To make sure all seats are filled, but not so much that you have to give vouchers to al the overbooked who can get a seat.

Admissions Deans have worked things out to a Black Art as to how many people to accept because the know from historic norms how many acceptees "melt", ie, go elsewhere.

Ditto for the size of the Olympic or pro sports teams; you only have so many seats.
Click to expand...

I get that aspect, but schools are already accepting more students than they have seats for in order to accommodate their tracked historical yield, and then putting some folks on the waitlist, again based on historical yield and waitlist movement.

Based on those facts, it seems that the process would be a lot more efficient if instead of interviewing 700 people for 200 acceptances and 100 waitlist spots (to ultimately fill 125 seats), they should only interview 500. Then they still "overbook" the same as they always did, however, they aren't interviewing as many folks that have no chance of getting an acceptance. Whatever method was used to rank the 700 they now interview, they can just stop at a higher stair as the bottom 100 will never get an acceptance.

From an applicant perspective, sure it's nice getting the II, but if I fell in the bottom 100 of those being interviewed it's a waste of the schools time and mine as the chances of getting an acceptance is pretty much 0. One could argue it's worse than not getting the II as it creates false hope.
 
surelycalm said:
Based on those facts, it seems that the process would be a lot more efficient if instead of interviewing 700 people for 200 acceptances and 100 waitlist spots (to ultimately fill 125 seats), they should only interview 500. Then they still "overbook" the same as they always did, however, they aren't interviewing as many folks that have no chance of getting an acceptance. Whatever method was used to rank the 700 they now interview, they can just stop at a higher stair as the bottom 100 will never get an acceptance.

From an applicant perspective, sure it's nice getting the II, but if I fell in the bottom 100 of those being interviewed it's a waste of the schools time and mine as the chances of getting an acceptance is pretty much 0. One could argue it's worse than not getting the II as it creates false hope.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, you lack the historical data on melt/yield that admissions directors hold and must maintain. Also, any change in process will likely apply to NEXT cycle based on the PREVIOUS completed cycle since we are currently in a cycle. Furthermore, there is the emotional safety that comes from a reliable process that already works for the SCHOOL/ADCOM's purposes. This is not about "customer service" towards applicants, though I am a proponent that at least more transparency about these numbers already serves the purpose towards better, more informed candidates.

Also, you cannot assume that all 700 people being interviewed have identical qualifications (the original question of the thread). What they come in with is some alignment with the recruitment goals and mission fit of the program. We're not trying to organize an orchestra with just drummers. Unless it's the Mr.Smile12 Drum Orchestra, but we don't need 700 drummers (budget and space).

Angry Jazz Band GIF by Peacock
 
Last edited:
Some (but not all) of those extra 200 are people who we "have" to interview because of their legacy status (related to a big donor, alumnus, or current faculty member). Some of those will wow us and be admitted. Many will not. We'd be tilting far more toward favoring legacies if we continued to interview them and cut 200 others. That seems unjust.
 
LizzyM said:
Some (but not all) of those extra 200 are people who we "have" to interview because of their legacy status (related to a big donor, alumnus, or current faculty member). Some of those will wow us and be admitted. Many will not. We'd be tilting far more toward favoring legacies if we continued to interview them and cut 200 others. That seems unjust.
Click to expand...
This makes sense and would lead me to believe the actual chance of an acceptance after an interview (assuming you didn't blow the interview and fall in the 50th percentile or higher for the school) is likely much higher than 25-40%.



Mr.Smile12 said:
Unfortunately, you lack the historical data on melt/yield that admissions directors hold and must maintain. Also, any change in process will likely apply to NEXT cycle based on the PREVIOUS completed cycle since we are currently in a cycle.

Also, you cannot assume that all 700 people being interviewed have identical qualifications (the original question of the thread). What they come in with is some alignment with the recruitment goals and mission fit of the program. We're not trying to organize an orchestra with just drummers. Unless it's the Mr.Smile12 Drum Orchestra, but we don't need 700 drummers (budget and space).
Click to expand...

I think the only historical data we are missing is the 200 (or whatever number it actually is) that are being interviewed due to obligatory reasons (we do have the II/A/yield numbers from previous cycles). If they are shooting for some other metric, the answer as to what would be very interesting.

I apologize, my question did go a bit off-topic from the original post. I agree, even if you only interviewed 500, they don't have identical qualifications. They all fall on some step on the larger staircase and will either go up or down from where they originally landed based on the interview. The vast majority being within 1 step +/- from where they started. I was just trying to wrap my head around why schools need a staircase of 700 and shoot for 30% conversion rates.
 
surelycalm said:
. The vast majority being within 1 step +/- from where they started. I was just trying to wrap my head around why schools need a staircase of 700 and shoot for 30% conversion rates.
Click to expand...
Another factor that you were ignoring is that for MD schools the admissions process is one of negative selection. MD schools are looking for reasons to reject people as opposed to accept them, because they have so many qualified applicants. 4.0 automatons are a dime a dozen.

If you look at the numbers from MSR about how many people apply, to the number of matriculants you'll see there's a very large number that don't get to the interview stage. It's roughly two to four interviewees per seat.

In the deal world, it's more of a positive selection process. We're interviewing people that we want to come, and therefore we tend at least in my school, to accept a lot of people. However our melt rates are a lot higher than MD schools.

Sadly, because this is a seller's market, this is not a process about what the applicants want. It's about what the medical schools want. You decide to apply or not. That's it.
 
I'm going to use a dangerous word and you need to consider it carefully. Schools are looking for diversity. We might sayt,as a private school that does not have a preference for instate applicants ,"look, here's a highly qualified applicant from Nebraska! We don't see many applicants from Nebraska." Ditto getting someone who is specifically interested in and with genuine experience working with a specific underserved population or with a language group that is common in our catchment area. It does not have to be about race or ethnicity but it can be about diversity of life experiences that bring something interesting to a small group such as a PBL discussion or a student in a group on hospital rounds, or who appears to meet an unmet need for physicians.
 
Goro said:
Another factor that you were ignoring is that for MD schools the admissions process is one of negative selection. MD schools are looking for reasons to reject people as opposed to accept them, because they have so many qualified applicants. 4.0 automatons are a dime a dozen.

If you look at the numbers from MSR about how many people apply, to the number of matriculants you'll see there's a very large number that don't get to the interview stage. It's roughly two to four interviewees per seat.

In the deal world, it's more of a positive selection process. We're interviewing people that we want to come, and therefore we tend at least in my school, to accept a lot of people. However our melt rates are a lot higher than MD schools.

Sadly, because this is a seller's market, this is not a process about what the applicants want. It's about what the medical schools want. You decide to apply or not. That's it.
Click to expand...
Are you at liberty to say which school is your school?
 
LizzyM said:
I'm going to use a dangerous word and you need to consider it carefully. Schools are looking for diversity. We might sayt,as a private school that does not have a preference for instate applicants ,"look, here's a highly qualified applicant from Nebraska! We don't see many applicants from Nebraska." Ditto getting someone who is specifically interested in and with genuine experience working with a specific underserved population or with a language group that is common in our catchment area. It does not have to be about race or ethnicity but it can be about diversity of life experiences that bring something interesting to a small group such as a PBL discussion or a student in a group on hospital rounds, or who appears to meet an unmet need for physicians.
Click to expand...
Yeah. As a resident in a VERY diverse family medicine program: when everyone's on the same team, diversity brings a lot of benefits. People have lots of different skills because they had been software engineers or Nigerian general practitioners or Kazakhstani PhD researchers. As a Black man - diversity's about an awful lot more than just race and ethnicity. That Kazakh dude, or the Alaskan guy that grew up hunting moose in the middle of nowhere, also brings diversity to a team...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
for the adcoms, would you say that letters of recommendation will never make your application, but can break it?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Goro
Goro
D
Why would adcoms wait to send an invite?
Replies
4
Views
1K
LizzyM
LizzyM
H
as an ADCOM, how would you react to my grades? what are some red flags?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
H
do adcoms take into consideration what year you are in?
Replies
21
Views
2K
pablo213
pablo213
taquitolord
  • Question Question
What percentage interview invites go out in August?
Replies
6
Views
2K
LizzyM
LizzyM
Top