After interview invite, do stats matter?

[Overlap12]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Once you are invited for an interview do admissions committees still consider your stats such as GPA and MCAT or is your interview the only criteria they look at once you're invited? I know this might differ from school to school, so does anyone know about University of Chicago, Tufts, and UC Davis? I've heard at MCW that once you're invited they only judge your interview for acceptance.

 

[busthwt]

it really depends, but still consider that once you interview your file will be reviewed by 12-16 other admission members who still had not seen your numbers. So even though you have made the cutoff other members of the comittee will have different preference when they view your applications. Some members will just outweigh your experiences over your numbers and vice versa. Hope that helps.

 

[RxnMan]

The short answer is...it depends. I know at U. of Colorado your stats get you in the door - the dean scores your application and invites you to interview if you're good enough.

Then you interview.

Afterwards they score you. Then they see your complete file (there better not be any surprises at this point!) and they score you again. All of the interviewers meet right after you're done and review everyone that was seen that day. Your interviewers represent you to the ADCOM - they can gloss over your bad points, or point out your mistakes. These three scores are averaged and determine your placement. Note that your stats are used three times (dean, interviewers, and ADCOM review,) and your placement is effectively decided the day you interview.

 

[TimmyTheWonderD]

if you stuck on a waitlist and end up being eyeballed when they start looking to pull people off of it you could get "caught in a numbers game" 🙁

 

[Law2Doc]

Once you are invited for an interview do admissions committees still consider your stats such as GPA and MCAT or is your interview the only criteria they look at once you're invited? I know this might differ from school to school, so does anyone know about University of Chicago, Tufts, and UC Davis? I've heard at MCW that once you're invited they only judge your interview for acceptance.

I agree with the poster who said it depends. There are some schools who will claim that once you get to the interview, you are on equal footing with the other interviewers, effectively a clean slate. More places still count everything, but the interview is hugely important and can outweigh other factors. It is the extremely rare place (if any) that interviews people but then really focuses again on the numbers in terms of admission, making the interview a formality and waste of time.
Generally when you interview, the interviewer converts your interview into a numerical score, based on how they rate you on things like maturity, etc. That numerical score goes back to the adcom. So it pays to perform well and get a high numerical score, as a higher one is one way to vault past those with better other stats.
I also agree that at any of these places, if you get dumped back into a waitlist, your numbers will play a role again.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

Being invited for an interview generally means you're numbers fall in the "acceptable" range. You can still be rejected if there is a substantial amount of applicants with higher numbers and similar interview scores/credentials as you.

 

[Law2Doc]

Being invited for an interview generally means you're numbers fall in the "acceptable" range. You can still be rejected if there is a substantial amount of applicants with higher numbers and similar interview scores/credentials as you.

Sure, but you can also blow away the higher stat competition with a good interview performance. Happens all the time.

 

[pico61]

Any takers to explain how this stuff works at UCLA?

 

[ULTRA nerves]

it really depends, but still consider that once you interview your file will be reviewed by 12-16 other admission members who still had not seen your numbers. So even though you have made the cutoff other members of the comittee will have different preference when they view your applications. Some members will just outweigh your experiences over your numbers and vice versa. Hope that helps.

Do you happen to know how a decision is made on UIC? I heard from someone that interviews at UIC are only worth about 10%. I would like to know if the committee members look at numbers (MCAT & GPA) more heavily than an applicant's clinical and leadership experiences. I interviewed there in March and was told a decision on my application would be made at the end of April. Having a great set of LORs, personal statements, and great leadership experience (I think they were what got me to the interview), could that possibly outweigh below average numbers?

UIC hopeful

 

[X5Boi]

Once you are invited for an interview do admissions committees still consider your stats such as GPA and MCAT or is your interview the only criteria they look at once you're invited? I know this might differ from school to school, so does anyone know about University of Chicago, Tufts, and UC Davis? I've heard at MCW that once you're invited they only judge your interview for acceptance.

Yes, stats do matter after the interview from personal experience. One school in PA actually rejected me post interview because my MCAT was not "as high as they would like it to be" (AKA, the ad comm would like to see it up "2 points"). Both of my interviewers highly recommended me for admissions (I emailed my interviewer and my student interviewer told me that he put down the highest marks). I was told of this after emailing the dicector of adm. So, moral of the story, do not judge chances from interview or what your interviewer says to you, this process is a huge crap shoot.

 

[happydoc]

The short answer is a YES! Everybody freaks about about the interview but the interview is not as big as people make it seem in evaluating for admissions. They just are trying to determine if your a normal person with no issues and are smart enough not to say anything stupid. 10% will get clearly thrown out because they just can't communicate their thoughts properly or say stupid things. 10% are so charistamatic they can bump themselves up and the rest of the 80% just move on to the next stage.

Any school might have 40-100 interviewers, there is to much subjection and medical schools know this. It is a very small piece, the stats/extracurr get you into med school.

If you don't believe me, then look at MDapplicants by school. Look at the interviewers GPA/MCAT score accepted vs. not accepted at any random school. Unless, you think people with higher GPA/MCAT are better interviewers in a 45 minute time span which is plan stupid. Good luck and don't worry to much. 🙂

 

[riceman04]

The short answer is a YES! Everybody freaks about about the interview but the interview is not as big as people make it seem in evaluating for admissions. They just are trying to determine if your a normal person with no issues and are smart enough not to say anything stupid. 10% will get clearly thrown out because they just can't communicate their thoughts properly or say stupid things. 10% are so charistamatic they can bump themselves up and the rest of the 80% just move on to the next stage.

Any school might have 40-100 interviewers, there is to much subjection and medical schools know this. It is a very small piece, the stats/extracurr get you into med school.

If you don't believe me, then look at MDapplicants by school. Look at the interviewers GPA/MCAT score accepted vs. not accepted at any random school. Unless, you think people with higher GPA/MCAT are better interviewers in a 45 minute time span which is plan stupid. Good luck and don't worry to much. 🙂

not completely true: It depends on the school.
Pitt considers the interview to be the most important factor of their FINAL admissions decision.

 

[eastsidaz]

The short answer is a YES! Everybody freaks about about the interview but the interview is not as big as people make it seem in evaluating for admissions. They just are trying to determine if your a normal person with no issues and are smart enough not to say anything stupid. 10% will get clearly thrown out because they just can't communicate their thoughts properly or say stupid things. 10% are so charistamatic they can bump themselves up and the rest of the 80% just move on to the next stage.

Any school might have 40-100 interviewers, there is to much subjection and medical schools know this. It is a very small piece, the stats/extracurr get you into med school.

If you don't believe me, then look at MDapplicants by school. Look at the interviewers GPA/MCAT score accepted vs. not accepted at any random school. Unless, you think people with higher GPA/MCAT are better interviewers in a 45 minute time span which is plan stupid. Good luck and don't worry to much. 🙂

Exactly. This should be the last word on this subject; it's pretty indisputable by now.

The real question is, is this the ideal way to do admissions? I say no. They should use the stuff on paper to build an interview pool--maybe even a smaller interview pool than they have now--but after that, everyone should be even. What makes a 4.0/39 a better physician than a 3.9/38? It's stupid.

 

[happydoc]

University of Pitt
Interviews (accepted) - MCAT 35.3, GPA 3.69
Interviews (Not accepted) - MCAT 34.2, GPA 3.66

They can say anything! But 1 point difference is a lot on the MCAT and .03 is a small difference too.

If the interview made most of the difference, the the two scores should be about the same.

 

[snobored18]

I completely agree that the interview seems to be overemphasized by many folks...if you talk to the physicians in our parents generation they weren't required to even visit the schools they applied everything was done by the numbers...I know my state school the University of Iowa, didn't even start requiring an interview until the late 90's and even today they have one 25 minute interview that is conducted by 100's of different interviewers who aren't on the committee...I don't even think a stellar interview at Iowa would do much to improve your chances, it is just simply a way to screen out people with radical views, inability to communicate etc. So I'm fairly sure at least at Iowa the interview is a small component and that applicants at this stage aren't on equal footing. That is just one example, Mayo on the other hand I think is completely the opposite...the interview really seems to be the most critical factor because everyone who makes it in has great credentials and it seems like they are really looking to see if you fit into their "system" and would adapt to the Mayo model of care...thus I think it really depends on the school whether the interview or stats has a greater impact.

 

[njbmd]

Once you are invited for an interview do admissions committees still consider your stats such as GPA and MCAT or is your interview the only criteria they look at once you're invited? I know this might differ from school to school, so does anyone know about University of Chicago, Tufts, and UC Davis? I've heard at MCW that once you're invited they only judge your interview for acceptance.

Hi there,
The interview is part of the whole admissions package. Your academics and ECs may have gotten you the interview but the interview can make the difference between acceptance or not. We look at everything and you can still be rejected even with a great interview if the class fills with people who are ranked above you.
njbmd 🙂

 

[Law2Doc]

I completely agree that the interview seems to be overemphasized by many folks...if you talk to the physicians in our parents generation they weren't required to even visit the schools they applied everything was done by the numbers...

Lots of things changed since then -- that's not a particularly strong argument. Back then there were no nontrads, there were no non-science majors. Pretty much everyone was a bio major. Medical schools have gone thru a huge transformation in terms of what makes a good doctor, and more or less have rejected a lot of the traditional notions. Hence the interviews, the emphasis on uniqueness, well rounded-ness, the enrollment of an ever growing number of humanities majors, the not going strictly by the numbers. So I wouldn't use what used to be as a particularly strong argument as to how to determine how important to consider the interview today.
I know quite a few people who vaulted past folks with higher stats thanks to the strength of their interviews. Far more than the supposed 10% happydoc suggests (unless the folks I know are totally skewed from the norm, percentage-wise). I'm sure it varies from place to place. A few schools actually will tell you that nothing else counts once you get to the interview stage. So treat it as a significant part of the application process, and prepare accordingly.

 

[snobored18]

Lots of things changed since then -- that's not a particularly strong argument. Back then there were no nontrads, there were no non-science majors. Pretty much everyone was a bio major. Medical schools have gone thru a huge transformation in terms of what makes a good doctor, and more or less have rejected a lot of the traditional notions. Hence the interviews, the emphasis on uniqueness, well rounded-ness, the enrollment of an ever growing number of humanities majors, the not going strictly by the numbers. So I wouldn't use what used to be as a particularly strong argument as to how to determine how important to consider the interview today.
I know quite a few people who vaulted past folks with higher stats thanks to the strength of their interviews. Far more than the supposed 10% happydoc suggests (unless the folks I know are totally skewed from the norm, percentage-wise). I'm sure it varies from place to place. A few schools actually will tell you that nothing else counts once you get to the interview stage. So treat it as a significant part of the application process, and prepare accordingly.

Did you read my entire statement or just the leading line...Iowa didn't make the interview required until 1999 I just looked it up...the point wasn't that the interview doesn't matter it was that at some schools its a screening tool they already have an idea of who they want...trust me this is what Iowa does, it is really a numbers game there...other places like Mayo place a significant amount of weight on the interview...if it were on numbers I doubt I'd have a chance of matriculating at MMS...read the entire post...you can't take stuff out of context...THE POINT IS THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERVIEW VARIES FROM SCHOOL TO SCHOOL...grrr...this isn't hearsay like you argument this is from my own experience, if we want to pick a part arguments

 

[2Sexy4MedSchool]

Do you happen to know how a decision is made on UIC? I heard from someone that interviews at UIC are only worth about 10%. I would like to know if the committee members look at numbers (MCAT & GPA) more heavily than an applicant's clinical and leadership experiences.

I can only tell you about my experience, so here you go: my application was unusual in that my GPA was low (UG, post-bac and graduate were all in the low 3.0 range), my MCAT was good (mid 30s) and my "other stuff" was very good. Of my three interviews, the med student and the doctor went well. The adcom guy went, well, less well. (Bad. Ugly. Yucky poo-poo.) I got accepted, so I'm assuming that 2/3 good interviews outweighed the numbers.

I wish you good luck.

 

[DNM503]

The short answer is a YES! Everybody freaks about about the interview but the interview is not as big as people make it seem in evaluating for admissions. They just are trying to determine if your a normal person with no issues and are smart enough not to say anything stupid. 10% will get clearly thrown out because they just can't communicate their thoughts properly or say stupid things. 10% are so charistamatic they can bump themselves up and the rest of the 80% just move on to the next stage.

Any school might have 40-100 interviewers, there is to much subjection and medical schools know this. It is a very small piece, the stats/extracurr get you into med school.

If you don't believe me, then look at MDapplicants by school. Look at the interviewers GPA/MCAT score accepted vs. not accepted at any random school. Unless, you think people with higher GPA/MCAT are better interviewers in a 45 minute time span which is plan stupid. Good luck and don't worry to much. 🙂

EXACTLY. I had really really really good interviews at Stanford. My faculty interviewer told me I was a shoo-in repeatedly during the interview...and I was rejected anyway. The interview is so overrated.

 

[ULTRA nerves]

I can only tell you about my experience, so here you go: my application was unusual in that my GPA was low (UG, post-bac and graduate were all in the low 3.0 range), my MCAT was good (mid 30s) and my "other stuff" was very good. Of my three interviews, the med student and the doctor went well. The adcom guy went, well, less well. (Bad. Ugly. Yucky poo-poo.) I got accepted, so I'm assuming that 2/3 good interviews outweighed the numbers.

I wish you good luck.

Thanks for your reply. I had a similar experience with the interview except that I think the physician was on the admission committee. I really wish that UIC focuses on my strong points.

 

[Law2Doc]

THE POINT IS THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERVIEW VARIES FROM SCHOOL TO SCHOOL...

It varies, and no I didn't make it all the way through to your last sentence, which really should have been your first (my bad). I agree with your capital lettered statement above. But as you have shown with the Iowa example, schools are coming into line and even those that didn't put any weight on the interview before are clearly adding them or in other cases adding emphasis to them. Everyone should assume thta it matters, but that, like ALL factors in the application, there is no one factor that matters exclusively. You will not get into med school one (or two) dimensionally.

 

[QofQuimica]

I also think it depends on the school. Some schools have closed interviews, and for those, I think the interviews are more important because the interviewer knows nothing about your numbers or ECs when you walk into the room. But I hypothesize that in general the interviews are a weedout technique like everything else. My experience has been that at many schools, the interviewer has already made up his/her mind about me before I've stepped into the room. I was accepted to some schools where my interviews were lukewarm or downright unpleasant, and rejected or waitlisted by some schools where my interviews were fantastic. I've had interviewers start out the interview by asking me what it would take to get me to attend their school, and interviewers who told me up front that they didn't think the committee was going to admit me. I guess I would advise future applicants not to blow off the interview, because I think a bad one works against you more than a good one works for you. But don't count on a fantastic interview to save you if you don't fit that school's profile, either.

 

[Saluki]

I think that the interview matters a lot more at places that have a super small class size- Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, for example... But in general, I do think that it's a weed out technique... Except for Mayo, the schools where I was above their stats, I got accepted at even with mediocre interviews, but at schools where I was below the stats or didn't fit their usual student I got waitlisted... I think the interview does make some difference though, because I didn't get any post-interview rejections...