After getting an interview.... is everyone at the same level?

[bozz]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Regardless of stats?

 

[HumidBeing]

No. At least not usually. Everything else still comes into play.

 

[154465]

According to Michigan, an interview can't make you. It can only break you if you screw it up.

 

[pyrois]

Regardless of stats?

Short Answer:

Nope

Long Answer:

The interview essentially serves a few purposes:

1. make sure you're not a psycho
2. get a feel for whether you'll "fit" their school
3. give you a chance to check out their school, staff, and students

In some cases, even if you have a stellar interview where they think you have a great personality, have interests and priorities that fit with their program, and you love the school, staff, and students, you might still get rejected based on your paper application.

This is true more commonly of schools that give out excessive quantities of interviews (Harvard, Einstein, WashU, etc.). Admittedly this is a necessary evil. No respectable school can risk not filling their classes, so they over-send secondaries, over-invite to interview, and even over-accept (and give out deferred acceptances).

 

[lemon tree]

if only it were so, because i am fabulous in person. on paper, not so much.

 

[Law2Doc]

Regardless of stats?

At quite a few schools the answer is yes, actually. Many schools only interview a small percentage of applicants, and deem that those who have made it to the interview round are deemed acceptable for med school -- the application won't be revisited and the interview then becomes the only game in town from which 1/3 to 1/2 of those interviewed will be accepted based on the strength of their interview as compared to the others. They have already been determined competitive after lengthy committee meetings based on their numbers, essays, LORs and ECs, so there is no reason to go back -- they are either in based on the interview or they are not. (Obviously places that give automatic interviews without reading the app, based on MCAT score or state residency can't do it this way, but this is a minority). To some extent the interviewers knowing your stats can help or taint the interview, but a strong interview can overcome this. At a bunch of other schools the application does get re-reviewed after the interview, but the interview itself is given major weight such that it often means someone with lower stats and a great interview will get in over someone with slightly better stats and a more average interview. When you get to med school, you will see many many people who got in despite there clearly being folks with better stats on the waitlist. Non-numerical factors, especially the interview, matter a whole lot in this process at most schools. Don't kid yourself into thinking that because you have a 3.8/37 you are done with the race.

Folks on pre-allo don't like to believe this because it essentially means that someone with not quite as good stats can take your seat, but it actually happens pretty often. Don't underestimate the subjective component of the application process. The best advice -- actually practice for the interview. Know what questions you will ask, know how you will respond to certain typical questions. Do a mock interview if you can. Take a public speaking class if you get nervous talking to strangers. Interviewing is a learnable skill. Don't go in just trying not to screw up -- you won't get into med school that way. It is the very very rare school that just uses interviews to screen out the psychos/crazies these days (that may have been more true 30 years ago when numerical stats were all that really mattered) -- most use it to determine "good fit" which means they have to like you and want you in their school. It is your spot to win, not just not to lose. Underestimating the importance of the interview is the fastest route to the waitlist. Anyone who gets an interview has a chance of getting into that med school -- schools wouldn't waste their time otherwise.

And bear in mind that premeds are often the worst at knowing whether the interview went well or not, so I would suggest that folks who think they had a "stellar interview" (as suggested by pyrois) and didn't get in often really didn't impress.

 

[njbmd]

In general, most applicants that are interviewed are acceptable for acceptance but definitely not equal (as evidenced by when acceptance letters are sent out). You are never "equal" to anyone else but post interview, you may have helped or hurt your cause by your presentation during the interview.

 

[SStorm]

I recall that Michael Istwan at MCW told us (the interviewees) that we are all on the same playing field. He specifically told us that MCW thought that any interviewee was capable of the coursework and to be a physician. The only thing that would differentiate us after the interview would be the interview.

On the other hand, Lucy Wall at UW-Madison told my friend that our interview counted as another letter of reference. It would be added to our file as a letter and then the adcom would review our file with this "letter" in it.

I think it just depends on the school.

 

[Nyu2004]

I think Law2docs response was great. I think the weight of the interview is different at every single school. I think that being granted an interview definitely means that the school belives that you are qualiified to attend. But you also have to look at the date of the interview that you were given. While you still stand a shot, if you interview in January then odds are many spots in the school will have been given out. If you interview earlier you stand a better shot. Some schools conversely use the interview to simply confirm what they felt about you AMCAS application and your secondary. Regardless the interview is crucial and most importantly it shows the school if you are a fit for them and vice versa.

 

[shiftingmirage]

Regardless of stats?

School I interviewed at said that we were invited because it was apparent that we had the abiliy to be successful in medical school, and as a physician, and that we were being interview to see if we would be a good fit for the university.

 

[notdeadyet]

At quite a few schools the answer is yes, actually.

L2D is right. These schools are definitely in the minority, but there are a lot more than you think.

 

[Jathin]

A rough outline:
Bad interview: Rejection regardless of stats.
Mediocre interview (where most people are): Stats determine who gets in.
Great interview, great stats: Acceptance.
Great interview, bad stats: On the fence, depends on how bad the stats are. If stats are really bad, worst case will be waitlist. (I rule out rejections because if they were going to reject you regardless of how great your interview went, they wouldn't interview you in the first place).

I don't know a single school that doesn't look at the "entire package" before making a decision. If you know of a school that claims to not look at anything but the interview before making their decision, please let me know so I can make them my top choice (I am very much so against this entire process being a stats-war). Most schools use a point system, where your GPA and MCAT get an objective # of points assigned. Then, there's a reviewer 'subjective' section where they judge you based on the 'feel' they get from you (I think this is based on secondary essays, extra curriculars, recommendations, etc.) Lastly, there's interview points. I think this is the way they do acceptances, not interviews. I think interviews are mostly subjective. This is mostly speculation based on rough outlines I've been given by different admissions directors on the process they use.

I spoke to the Associate Director of Admissions at Duke yesterday and he told me that they don't even look at recommendations pre-interview. Presumably, at Duke, the recommendations are read right before making their decision -- take that for what it's worth in relation to how much the interview weighs in on things.

 

[lemon tree]

A rough outline:
Bad interview: Rejection regardless of stats.
Mediocre interview (where most people are): Stats determine who gets in.
Great interview, great stats: Acceptance.
Great interview, bad stats: On the fence, depends on how bad the stats are. If stats are really bad, worst case will be waitlist. (I rule out rejections because if they were going to reject you regardless of how great your interview went, they wouldn't interview you in the first place).

I don't know a single school that doesn't look at the "entire package" before making a decision. If you know of a school that claims to not look at anything but the interview before making their decision, please let me know so I can make them my top choice (I am very much so against this entire process being a stats-war). Most schools use a point system, where your GPA and MCAT get an objective # of points assigned. Then, there's a reviewer 'subjective' section where they judge you based on the 'feel' they get from you (I think this is based on secondary essays, extra curriculars, recommendations, etc.) Lastly, there's interview points. I think this is the way they do acceptances, not interviews. I think interviews are mostly subjective. This is mostly speculation based on rough outlines I've been given by different admissions directors on the process they use.

I spoke to the Associate Director of Admissions at Duke yesterday and he told me that they don't even look at recommendations pre-interview. Presumably, at Duke, the recommendations are read right before making their decision -- take that for what it's worth in relation to how much the interview weighs in on things.

you forgot me:

fabulous interview; 3.5 gpa; 33S MCAT; great EC/research; ivy league undergrad.

 

[Jathin]

you forgot me:

fabulous interview; 3.5 gpa; 33S MCAT; great EC/research; ivy league undergrad.

I think it comes down to where you're applying. At top-10 schools you're below both their average gpa and average MCAT, but I know a girl that got into Penn M.D./PhD with a 33 MCAT. So if you're one of those people with really unique/outrageous extra curriculars and you confirm that in your interview, I think you're in really good shape. I think a lot of people consider being in the pre-med club, volunteering, and research as "great EC" because they've done it for all 4 years of college. I believe most schools are looking for that *and then some*, preferably something completely unrelated to medicine.

If it's worth anything to you, though, virtually every MS1 I've spoken to at Hopkins has said their interviews had nothing to do with medicine -- but rather something like cooking.

 

[lemon tree]

I think it comes down to where you're applying. At top-10 schools you're below both their average gpa and average MCAT, but I know a girl that got into Penn M.D./PhD with a 33 MCAT. So if you're one of those people with really unique/outrageous extra curriculars and you confirm that in your interview, I think you're in really good shape. I think a lot of people consider being in the pre-med club, volunteering, and research as "great EC" because they've done it for all 4 years of college. I believe most schools are looking for that *and then some*, preferably something completely unrelated to medicine.

If it's worth anything to you, though, virtually every MS1 I've spoken to at Hopkins has said their interviews had nothing to do with medicine -- but rather something like cooking.

i have 2 top 10 interviews, but i'm not expecting to be accepted. i'm thinking more like top 20-40 schools: BU, Case, Rochester, Georgetown.

I'm hoping killer interviews will put me over the top at those schools.

btw, by ECs i mean post grad clinical and research experiences that are pretty great, i think. not undegrad clubs and stuff.