- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 0
While it's obvious that interviewing early at a program with rolling admissions is very advantageous, is there any benefit (similar or otherwise) to interviewing sooner than later at a non-rolling school?
It's my understanding that non-rolling programs (e.g. Harvard, Penn, UCSF) make all admissions decisions in the spring after all candidates have interviewed, thus placing early and late interviewers on equal footing. (One might argue that late interviewers, assuming a good performance, may even have an edge in this scenario, being fresh in the minds of adcoms - but perhaps that's reading too far.) Is this correct, or do variations (or other considerations) exist such that the early interview is still favorable?
I see this becoming an important consideration if one is forced to resolve a schedule conflict between valued non-rolling school and a less valued rolling school (my current situation) - also perhaps ruling out the "warm up with easier/less valued school(s)" argument as a confounding factor. Thanks in advance for any perspective you folks may have on this.
It's my understanding that non-rolling programs (e.g. Harvard, Penn, UCSF) make all admissions decisions in the spring after all candidates have interviewed, thus placing early and late interviewers on equal footing. (One might argue that late interviewers, assuming a good performance, may even have an edge in this scenario, being fresh in the minds of adcoms - but perhaps that's reading too far.) Is this correct, or do variations (or other considerations) exist such that the early interview is still favorable?
I see this becoming an important consideration if one is forced to resolve a schedule conflict between valued non-rolling school and a less valued rolling school (my current situation) - also perhaps ruling out the "warm up with easier/less valued school(s)" argument as a confounding factor. Thanks in advance for any perspective you folks may have on this.
