After the interview, is the decision based on just the interview result or the entire application?

[omegaz]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I know GPA and MCAT are considered to bypass the first round. But after the interview, is the decision solely based on your performance during the interview, or a combination of your entire application?

 

[claduva94]

Depends on the school. But its safe to say they almost always consider the whole application to some extent.

 

[gyngyn]

I know GPA and MCAT are considered to bypass the first round. But after the interview, is the decision solely based on your performance during the interview, or a combination of your entire application?

An assessment of your strengths and weaknesses compared to others in your stats range is made. Depending on a particular school's mission and yield requirements, interviews are offered in your range consistent with the school's resources. Generally speaking, the whole application is evaluated after interviews are conducted.

 

[darkjedi]

It's absolutely the entire application. The interview is just one of many parts.

Here is an excellent quote from LizzyM that sheds some light on the process

I've answered this before but here goes: It does vary by school. Imagine that people are standing on a huge staircase with those who have the highest stats and the most remarkable experiences at the top stair and downward to the least among those who are interviewed. After the interview, the applicants can keep their place on their original stair, go up a step or two or go down a step or many steps. In most cases, the people with the higest stats are still at the top but some are sent to the bottom step and some people move up or down according to their performance.

 

[gettheleadout]

I know GPA and MCAT are considered to bypass the first round. But after the interview, is the decision solely based on your performance during the interview, or a combination of your entire application?

This has got to be one of the MOST commonly asked questions on SDN.

 

[LizzyM]

This has got to be one of the MOST commonly asked questions on SDN.

But it seems to be resurfacing earlier this year than usual. Thanks to @darkjedi for digging into the archives for the response I didn't have to retype.

 

[NickNaylor]

At my institution, applicants are assigned to members of the admissions committee to present at the final committee meeting. This presentation includes a complete overview of all aspects of the application; while the interview is obviously an important component of the application, it also represents only one day in the context of at least 4 years of academic and life experiences.

Some schools DO choose to ignore numbers after the interview stage (e.g., Mayo used to have this philosophy), but the other components of the application - largely your activity descriptions, letters of recommendation, and interviews - will surely matter.

 

[Goro]

A bad interview will always trump a great app. We rejected 4.0/40 MCAT people because they bombed the interview.

Conversely, a great interview can salvage a mediocre app. Sometimes we accept "risky" people who we just have a gut feeling about that this is someone we want as a student.

Furthermore, no matter how great an interview, if someone has a bad app, they're doomed (like not having any patient contact, or a bad LOR).

Look for "Goro's Guide to Interviews" here, later this summer!

I know GPA and MCAT are considered to bypass the first round. But after the interview, is the decision solely based on your performance during the interview, or a combination of your entire application?

 

[BeancheBlanco]

Why would they ignore the rest of your application after the interview? Pretend you are the head of a med school and were accepting people into your class. You want the best people possible. Why would you only use one piece of information and throw the rest in the garbage?

 

[Goro]

If the person is a robot, or can't talk his way out of a paper bag, or just stares at you when you've asked a question, that's NOT someone I want touching my children, nor do my students or clinical colleagues want this person as a colleague.

"Best" doesn't mean highest GPA/MCAT only. 4.0 automatons are a dime a dozen.

You also forget that for every interviewee like this, there are 5-10 more who are good all around. Seller's market, we can afford to be choosy. I have to teach these people, you don't.

Why would they ignore the rest of your application after the interview? Pretend you are the head of a med school and were accepting people into your class. You want the best people possible. Why would you only use one piece of information and throw the rest in the garbage?

 

[BeancheBlanco]

If the person is a robot, or can't talk his way out of a paper bag, or just stares at you when you've asked a question, that's NOT someone I want touching my children, nor do my students want this person as a colleague.

"Best" doesn't mean highest GPA/MCAT only. 4.0 automatons are a dime a dozen.

You also forget that for every interviewee like this, there are 5-10 more who are good all around. Seller's market, we can afford to be choosy. I have to teach these people, you don't.

If you act like a complete fool in an interview, that would be a huge negative on your overall application, and you would probably be rejected. I'm not saying the interview is meaningless. I'm saying it would be pointless to throw out everyone's entire application save a short one-day interview and judge them solely on that. If I'm trying to find the best applicant possible, I would want the most information possible about this person. That would include his interview, academics, experiences, and background.

 

[LizzyM]

If you act like a complete fool in an interview, that would be a huge negative on your overall application, and you would probably be rejected. I'm not saying the interview is meaningless. I'm saying it would be pointless to throw out everyone's entire application save a short one-day interview and judge them solely on that. If I'm trying to find the best applicant possible, I would want the most information possible about this person. That would include his interview, academics, experiences, and background.

Yes, we're all on the same page. The strongest applicants are chosen after considering the academic record, experiences, recommendations, interview, essay(s), etc.

 

[omegaz]

If you act like a complete fool in an interview, that would be a huge negative on your overall application, and you would probably be rejected. I'm not saying the interview is meaningless. I'm saying it would be pointless to throw out everyone's entire application save a short one-day interview and judge them solely on that. If I'm trying to find the best applicant possible, I would want the most information possible about this person. That would include his interview, academics, experiences, and background.

The rest of the application is thrown out because we've already used them for the stages prior to the interview stage. Those that made it to the interview stage all have qualified or exceptional academics, experiences, and background.

 

[BeancheBlanco]

The rest of the application is thrown out because we've already used them for the stages prior to the interview stage. Those that made it to the interview stage all have qualified or exceptional academics, experiences, and background.

some are more qualified and more exceptional than others, no? If you have two identical twins with identical experiences and identical interviews, but one has a 3.9 and the other has a 3.8, who would you prefer to have as your doctor?

 

[yanks26dmb]

Does "boming" an interview mean lacking social skills, making rude/ignorant comments, etc...

Or could it include someone who stutters over their words here or there/is a little tight due to nerves?

 

[Goro]

There's the key right there. As I've pointed out before, it actually takes work to bomb an interview.
If you act like a complete fool in an interview, that would be a huge negative on your overall application, and you would probably be rejected.


At our meetings the Adcom will frequently rescue interviewees from hard-ass interviewers. I have a colleague who rejects people because the haven't taken a particular course which my colleague feels is crucial to doing well inmedical school. The course is NOT required by our school. So these candidates typcially go from wait list to accept.

If there's disagreement among the interviewers, and the candidate has high numbers, the Dean (who likes good MCAT scores) will change wait-list to accept.

In sum, the Adcom does look at the entire packet. Sometimes we just feel "eh" about someone and s/he'll be wait-listed, and the Dean will eventually pick this person up off of the wait list once class filling time rolls around.

I'm not saying the interview is meaningless. I'm saying it would be pointless to throw out everyone's entire application save a short one-day interview and judge them solely on that. If I'm trying to find the best applicant possible, I would want the most information possible about this person. That would include his interview, academics, experiences, and background.

It's not a zero-sum game. You can't think that way. We don't interview two people for one seat. Both twins would be accepted if they're good. Stop thinking everything is about numbers.
some are more qualified and more exceptional than others, no? If you have two identical twins with identical experiences and identical interviews, but one has a 3.9 and the other has a 3.8, who would you prefer to have as your doctor?

Yes
Does "bombing" an interview mean lacking social skills, making rude/ignorant comments, etc...

No. I've seen people break out in florid rashes, and even fart. Not a killer, so to speak.
Or could it include someone who stutters over their words here or there/is a little tight due to nerves?

 

[gettheleadout]

The rest of the application is thrown out because we've already used them for the stages prior to the interview stage. Those that made it to the interview stage all have qualified or exceptional academics, experiences, and background.

From exactly what position are you asserting this?

 

[orangeman25]

There's the key right there. As I've pointed out before, it actually takes work to bomb an interview.
If you act like a complete fool in an interview, that would be a huge negative on your overall application, and you would probably be rejected.


At our meetings the Adcom will frequently rescue interviewees from hard-ass interviewers. I have a colleague who rejects people because the haven't taken a particular course which my colleague feels is crucial to doing well inmedical school. The course is NOT required by our school. So these candidates typcially go from wait list to accept.

If there's disagreement among the interviewers, and the candidate has high numbers, the Dean (who likes good MCAT scores) will change wait-list to accept.

In sum, the Adcom does look at the entire packet. Sometimes we just feel "eh" about someone and s/he'll be wait-listed, and the Dean will eventually pick this person up off of the wait list once class filling time rolls around.

I'm not saying the interview is meaningless. I'm saying it would be pointless to throw out everyone's entire application save a short one-day interview and judge them solely on that. If I'm trying to find the best applicant possible, I would want the most information possible about this person. That would include his interview, academics, experiences, and background.

It's not a zero-sum game. You can't think that way. We don't interview two people for one seat. Both twins would be accepted if they're good. Stop thinking everything is about numbers.
some are more qualified and more exceptional than others, no? If you have two identical twins with identical experiences and identical interviews, but one has a 3.9 and the other has a 3.8, who would you prefer to have as your doctor?

Yes
Does "bombing" an interview mean lacking social skills, making rude/ignorant comments, etc...

No. I've seen people break out in florid rashes, and even fart. Not a killer, so to speak.
Or could it include someone who stutters over their words here or there/is a little tight due to nerves?

Goro, you mentioned that your dean likes good mcat scores. Can you define "good"?

 

[DiffusionJones]

A bad interview will always trump a great app. We rejected 4.0/40 MCAT people because they bombed the interview.

Wait... what? Why were they even applying to a DO school with those stats?

 

[Law2Doc]

some are more qualified and more exceptional than others, no? If you have two identical twins with identical experiences and identical interviews, but one has a 3.9 and the other has a 3.8, who would you prefer to have as your doctor?

Often not the one you think. You never have two identical people. But at many (if not most) places they already decided that both of these people was qualified when they invited them in. Meaning the school is actually indifferent as to whether they get the guy with the 3.8 or a 3.9 -- both are adequate-- they just want the one that's the best fit, personality-wise. Obviously exceptions are made when they invite in courtesy interviews and the like. but at least at many places, if you got invited in the interview was the single biggest hurdle left that was going to decide who gets in. Many people I know got into med school over higher stat people on the strength of strong interviews. Of course they got into the interview in the first place, so they already got over some threshold. But at most places eg a 3.7 with a strong interview gets in over the 4.0 with the lukewarm interview 100% of the time.

 

[Law2Doc]

Does "boming" an interview mean lacking social skills, making rude/ignorant comments, etc...

Or could it include someone who stutters over their words here or there/is a little tight due to nerves?

In most cases the bad interview isn't a bomb. It's just lukewarm, boring, safe. If it doesn't flow like a Conversation it's a bad interview. The guys who take the approach that all they need to do is "not screw up" or think the interview is just to "weed out the crazies" totally miss the point of the interview. In many interview cycles there won't be many crazies or total screw ups. There will be 40% or so who know how to sit down and talk to someone, and they are going to take your spot. So practice. Practice. Practice.

 

[markmcmarcuson]

@Goro

I'm a little worried about the interview process. I used to have a mild stutter that I've worked hard to overcome. It seldom pops up and when it does it's a matter of not being able to get a specific word out (usually a couple of second break once or twice a conversation/presentation) and nothing more than that; i.e. I don't think it would affect my ability to talk to patients. That said, if I had a bit of trouble saying my name initially or couldn't get a word out, would I automatically be looked at as inferior and/or incapable of becoming a doctor?

 

[trino]

In most cases the bad interview isn't a bomb. It's just lukewarm, boring, safe. If it doesn't flow like a Conversation it's a bad interview. The guys who take the approach that all they need to do is "not screw up" or think the interview is just to "weed out the crazies" totally miss the point of the interview. In many interview cycles there won't be many crazies or total screw ups. There will be 40% or so who know how to sit down and talk to someone, and they are going to take your spot. So practice. Practice. Practice.

Agree with this completely, although I would venture to guess that more than 40% of the interviewees can hold a conversation. Interviews are pretty laid back. A pitfall some people (including me) fall into is believing that they can just have a conversation and talk about anything. Just being sociable will be better than all the automatons out there. Not the case. Many, if not most, people at interviews are sociable or can put on a face (they did all that volunteering, remember?). The interview can have a conversational tone, but needs to be more. You need to be able to get across certain qualities and stories about yourself that you want the adcom to know. The interviewer points you in the right direction, but he/she certainly doesn't hold your hand all the way there

 

[Goro]

If this guy: http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/labs/white/ who I knew when I was a lab tech at MSKCC, who had a grand mal stutter, could be a world class pediatric endocrinologist, then so can you. Just tell the Admissions dean up front that you have a slight stutter, and I'll bet he'll go to bat for you with the Adcom.


I'm a little worried about the interview process. I used to have a mild stutter that I've worked hard to overcome. It seldom pops up and when it does it's a matter of not being able to get a specific word out (usually a couple of second break once or twice a conversation/presentation) and nothing more than that; i.e. I don't think it would affect my ability to talk to patients. That said, if I had a bit of trouble saying my name initially or couldn't get a word out, would I automatically be looked at as inferior and/or incapable of becoming a doctor?[/QUOTE]



They liked the osteopathic philosophy and had disappointing experiences with allopathic medicine, and/or were helped by a DO.
Wait... what? Why were they even applying to a DO school with those stats?

The higher the better. Other Deans like high GPAs.
Goro, you mentioned that your dean likes good mcat scores. Can you define "good"?

 

[BeancheBlanco]

Often not the one you think. You never have two identical people. But at many (if not most) places they already decided that both of these people was qualified when they invited them in. Meaning the school is actually indifferent as to whether they get the guy with the 3.8 or a 3.9 -- both are adequate-- they just want the one that's the best fit, personality-wise. Obviously exceptions are made when they invite in courtesy interviews and the like. but at least at many places, if you got invited in the interview was the single biggest hurdle left that was going to decide who gets in. Many people I know got into med school over higher stat people on the strength of strong interviews. Of course they got into the interview in the first place, so they already got over some threshold. But at most places eg a 3.7 with a strong interview gets in over the 4.0 with the lukewarm interview 100% of the time.

you can debate the relative weight of the interview all you want. I'm sure every school is different. All I'm saying is that a person's application is judged as a whole, even after an interview. A person with a 3.9 will be looked at more favorably than a person with a 3.8, even if both are acceptable. A person with slightly more/better activities is looked at more favorably than a person with slightly less/worse activities. Maybe it's only slightly, maybe it's huge. That's not what I am debating.

 

[Law2Doc]

you can debate the relative weight of the interview all you want. I'm sure every school is different. All I'm saying is that a person's application is judged as a whole, even after an interview. A person with a 3.9 will be looked at more favorably than a person with a 3.8, even if both are acceptable. A person with slightly more/better activities is looked at more favorably than a person with slightly less/worse activities. Maybe it's only slightly, maybe it's huge. That's not what I am debating.

And I'm saying no, it's not necessarily the case, and certainly not at the places I'm most familiar with. If a program vets people before the interview, and deems everyone they invite in to be qualified, they may not go back to the file in any meaningful way. So 3.8, 3.9 becomes a level field and the interview becomes the 800 lb gorilla. Slightly better GPa never plays into it once they get past certain hurdles.

 

[LizzyM]

And I'm saying no, it's not necessarily the case, and certainly not at the places I'm most familiar with. If a program vets people before the interview, and deems everyone they invite in to be qualified, they may not go back to the file in any meaningful way. So 3.8, 3.9 becomes a level field and the interview becomes the 800 lb gorilla. Slightly better GPa never plays into it once they get past certain hurdles.

Yes but the adcom arguments start when you have a 39/3.9 who was bored and boring and/or a 27/3.5 with a hook who hits it out of the park.

 

[Goro]

As usual, my learned colleague hits it out of the park!

Yes but the adcom arguments start when you have a 39/3.9 who was bored and boring and/or a 27/3.5 with a hook who hits it out of the park.

 

[Law2Doc]

Yes but the adcom arguments start when you have a 39/3.9 who was bored and boring and/or a 27/3.5 with a hook who hits it out of the park.

At the place I was at a 27 probably would not have gotten an interview in the first place but if they somehow did, there wouldn't be much debate -- out of the park beats boring. I know and saw tons of people who got spots over others with somewhat better numbers on the strength of interviews.

But note how in your example you had to spread the numbers to create any real debate. In the prior posters example it would never even come up for discussion -- you would ALWAYS take the 3.8 with the better interview over the 3.9.

 

[LizzyM]

At the place I was at a 27 probably would not have gotten an interview in the first place but if they somehow did, there wouldn't be much debate -- out of the park beats boring. I know and saw tons of people who got spots over others with somewhat better numbers on the strength of interviews.

But note how in your example you had to spread the numbers to create any real debate. In the prior posters example it would never even come up for discussion -- you would ALWAYS take the 3.8 with the better interview over the 3.9.

This wouldn't be an either/or but on the merits: the dean loves high numbers but can we stand the bored & boring applicant with high numbers? Ditto the applicant with a low MCAT/borderline GPA who is a multi-generational legacy or otherwise was a "must interview" despite a less than steller MCAT. We hold our nose & interview these folks but if they really surprise us at interview, then the debate begins.

 

[BeancheBlanco]

And I'm saying no, it's not necessarily the case, and certainly not at the places I'm most familiar with. If a program vets people before the interview, and deems everyone they invite in to be qualified, they may not go back to the file in any meaningful way. So 3.8, 3.9 becomes a level field and the interview becomes the 800 lb gorilla. Slightly better GPa never plays into it once they get past certain hurdles.

this is simply wrong. You interview people who pass a certain threshold of "desirableness". That does not mean everyone past that threshold has equal "desirableness". If you put everyone at a perfectly level playing, you are throwing away this valuable information. The only possible reason to put everyone at a perfectly level playing field for the interview is for simplification.

 

[NickNaylor]

this is simply wrong. You interview people who pass a certain threshold of "desirableness". That does not mean everyone past that threshold has equal "desirableness". If you put everyone at a perfectly level playing, you are throwing away this valuable information. The only possible reason to put everyone at a perfectly level playing field for the interview is for simplification.

Just curious, what exactly makes you feel like you can comment so strongly about these things? Have you read a certain threshold of SDN threads or something? Different schools operate differently. The reality you don't seem to understand is that applicants fall on a bell curve, with most of them being pretty similar in most respects. In these cases - which is most of them - the interview becomes extremely important. You're setting up an unrealistic situation and then abstracting that out to process as a whole. The situation in which a 3.8 vs. a 3.9 results in an acceptance or rejection simply doesn't happen.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Law2Doc]

this is simply wrong. You interview people who pass a certain threshold of "desirableness". That does not mean everyone past that threshold has equal "desirableness". If you put everyone at a perfectly level playing, you are throwing away this valuable information. The only possible reason to put everyone at a perfectly level playing field for the interview is for simplification.

Not only is it not "wrong" insofar as it happens exactly as I'm describing at multiple places, but also many would argue that the interview itself provides much more "valuable information" in terms of being a doctor, so throwing a tenth of a GPa out of the consideration is fine.

Whatever. This debate happens every year and every year I get follow up PMs from people telling me that their programs also do pretty much what I'm describing. But premeds hate to hear it because they like to believe that if they hit the numbers they are "set" and don't like the idea that someone with slightly lower numbers can still bump them out.

 

[Goro]

100% correct! A lot of hyper achievers have trouble understanding that merit is not always measured by GPA and MCAT. That's why the "compelling life story" counts for something in an app, and why we reject 4.0/40 applicants because we would want them touching our dogs, much less doing a pelvic or prostate exam on loved ones.


Whatever. This debate happens every year and every year I get follow up PMs from people telling me that their programs also do pretty much what I'm describing. But premeds hate to hear it because they like to believe that if they hit the numbers they are "set" and don't like the idea that someone with slightly lower numbers can still bump them out.[/QUOTE]

 

[BeancheBlanco]

Just curious, what exactly makes you feel like you can comment so strongly about these things? Have you read a certain threshold of SDN threads or something? Different schools operate differently. The reality you don't seem to understand is that applicants fall on a bell curve, with most of them being pretty similar in most respects. In these cases - which is most of them - the interview becomes extremely important. You're setting up an unrealistic situation and then abstracting that out to process as a whole. The situation in which a 3.8 vs. a 3.9 results in an acceptance or rejection simply doesn't happen.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dude, wtf. When did I say the interview "was not important". I think it is very important. I am saying that other things are important, too. You completely misunderstood my point. I am not claiming that all schools will look at the entire application after an interview. I am claiming that the only reason that someone should ONLY look at the interview would be to save time and for simplification. Am I a committee member? No. I do not have authority on the topic. I am stating my opinion, as is usual on a pre-med forum. As for my hypothetical situation about the 3.8 vs. the 3.9, again you missed the point. I fully realize that it is impossible to have two perfectly equal candidates in all respects, other than GPA. I created this impossible, hypothetical situation to show that it is illogical to throw away interviewee's applications after an interview. If we had two applicants with identical interviews, you would want the one with the higher GPA. Or the higher MCAT. Or the better experiences. Or anything else that is better on the application. If you agree with this, then you are agreeing with my entire point.

Not only is it not "wrong" insofar as it happens exactly as I'm describing at multiple places, but also many would argue that the interview itself provides much more "valuable information" in terms of being a doctor, so throwing a tenth of a GPa out of the consideration is fine.

Whatever. This debate happens every year and every year I get follow up PMs from people telling me that their programs also do pretty much what I'm describing. But premeds hate to hear it because they like to believe that if they hit the numbers they are "set" and don't like the idea that someone with slightly lower numbers can still bump them out.

It is irrelevant to this discussion "what is happening at multiple places". I am not saying "how it is". I am saying "how it should be, if time and simplification weren't an issue". You are misreading my posts. I agree that the interview is valuable. I am saying that other things are important, as well. You didn't answer the question. Given perfectly identical interviews, would you want the candidate with the better GPA/MCAT/experiences or would you want the candidate with the worse GPA/MCAT/experiences? Or would you flip a coin? Stop projecting what you want me to have said onto what I actually said.

 

[Mad Jack]

Weird that this question is showing up pre-interview season.

 

[NickNaylor]

dude, wtf. When did I say the interview "was not important". I think it is very important. I am saying that other things are important, too. You completely misunderstood my point. I am not claiming that all schools will look at the entire application after an interview. I am claiming that the only reason that someone should ONLY look at the interview would be to save time and for simplification. Am I a committee member? No. I do not have authority on the topic. I am stating my opinion, as is usual on a pre-med forum. As for my hypothetical situation about the 3.8 vs. the 3.9, again you missed the point. I fully realize that it is impossible to have two perfectly equal candidates in all respects, other than GPA. I created this impossible, hypothetical situation to show that it is illogical to throw away interviewee's applications after an interview. If we had two applicants with identical interviews, you would want the one with the higher GPA. Or the higher MCAT. Or the better experiences. Or anything else that is better on the application. If you agree with this, then you are agreeing with my entire point.



It is irrelevant to this discussion "what is happening at multiple places". I am not saying "how it is". I am saying "how it should be, if time and simplification weren't an issue". You are misreading my posts. I agree that the interview is valuable. I am saying that other things are important, as well. You didn't answer the question. Given perfectly identical interviews, would you want the candidate with the better GPA/MCAT/experiences or would you want the candidate with the worse GPA/MCAT/experiences? Or would you flip a coin? Stop projecting what you want me to have said onto what I actually said.

But the interviews are never "identical." Your description of the process is itself a simplification. In reality, there is a calculus which goes on. Because people are rarely excellent in everything, it's about figuring out if their relative weaknesses are outweighed by their strengths and what the committee thinks they can contribute to the school. It is also rarely true that two applicants are so similar that one criterion is used to distinguish among them.

Your construction makes sense theoretically, but that's not how things actually happen. I don't think I'm really understanding what you're trying to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BeancheBlanco]

But the interviews are never "identical." Your description of the process is itself a simplification. In reality, there is a calculus which goes on. Because people are rarely excellent in everything, it's about figuring out if their relative weaknesses are outweighed by their strengths and what the committee thinks they can contribute to the school. It is also rarely true that two applicants are so similar that one criterion is used to distinguish among them.

Your construction makes sense theoretically, but that's not how things actually happen. I don't think I'm really understanding what you're trying to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All I am saying is that when you judge an applicant, you should consider his academic credentials, experiences, interview, essays, recommendations, and anything else on the application. When you cut the potential class down to only the interviewed applicants, why would you change the judgement criteria solely to the interview? It doesn't make sense to me. Just because you have a smaller, more qualified pool does not mean everyone is the same. Those hypothetical examples were supposed to clarify this but clearly that did not happen.

And I'll repeat for emphasis, I am NOT saying the interview is meaningless and 4.0/40 are pinnacle of humanity.

 

[NickNaylor]

All I am saying is that when you judge an applicant, you should consider his academic credentials, experiences, interview, essays, recommendations, and anything else on the application. When you cut the potential class down to only the interviewed applicants, why would you change the judgement criteria solely to the interview? It doesn't make sense to me. Just because you have a smaller, more qualified pool does not mean everyone is the same. Those hypothetical examples were supposed to clarify this but clearly that did not happen.

And I'll repeat for emphasis, I am NOT saying the interview is meaningless and 4.0/40 are pinnacle of humanity.

Well I think that does happen, but as I mentioned above, the problem is that most applicants are very similar. Sure, the particulars of their apps may be different, but everyone's going to have the same general experiences, everyone's going to have that "hook," and most people are going to have numbers that are fairly comparable. The interview gets so much credit exactly because this is one way in which applicants get a real opportunity to distinguish themselves and put a personal mark on their application. The interview is also typically the setting in which you get the opportunity to argue (either directly or indirectly) why you want to end up at that school specifically. Successfully making that argument is hugely attractive to schools for a variety of reasons.

I see what you're saying, but I think you overstate the differences in "qualifications" (cringe) of the interviewing pool. 10% of the pool will be truly outstanding, 10% of the pool will have some work to do, and the remaining 80% will be a smear of similarity. This is why the interview is done and why it becomes important. It's not that the remaining information is ignored or unimportant; it's that it can only offer so much value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Heday]

It is irrelevant to this discussion "what is happening at multiple places". I am not saying "how it is". I am saying "how it should be, if time and simplification weren't an issue". You are misreading my posts. I agree that the interview is valuable. I am saying that other things are important, as well.

Irrelevant to this discussion? I thought the thread was about whether the acceptance decision is based solely on the interview. It's very relevant to know what is actually happening.

"Shoulda, coulda, woulda." Stating how they should do things is futile consider in it won't make a difference as to how schools will approach the decision. Also, if you you're self haven't had to make these decisions, then it's an uninformed "shoulda." First hand experience trumps.

Lastly, I think so many of us forget that we aren't necessarily competing for spots on a one-to-one basis. It would be counterproductive to pit similar candidate against each other. What you're arguing was somewhat addressed with LizzyM's staircase analogy. What more is left to discuss?

Edit: also when I read your initial posts, the tone used seemed to indicate that what is wrote is what happens on adcoms.

 

[BeancheBlanco]

Irrelevant to this discussion? I thought the thread was about whether the acceptance decision is based solely on the interview. It's very relevant to know what is actually happening.

"Shoulda, coulda, woulda." Stating how they should do things is futile consider in it won't make a difference as to how schools will approach the decision. Also, if you you're self haven't had to make these decisions, then it's an uninformed "shoulda." First hand experience trumps.

Lastly, I think so many of us forget that we aren't necessarily competing for spots on a one-to-one basis. It would be counterproductive to pit similar candidate against each other. What you're arguing was somewhat addressed with LizzyM's staircase analogy. What more is left to discuss?

Edit: also when I read your initial posts, the tone used seemed to indicate that what is wrote is what happens on adcoms.

I meant the discussion between me and the people responding to me. I am not an adcom and I have no idea what adcoms do. I'm sorry my tone came across that way. You're right that there isn't much left to discuss. But people kept responding, claiming that I am way off base, which is why the discussion kept going.

 

[Law2Doc]

Irrelevant to this discussion? I thought the thread was about whether the acceptance decision is based solely on the interview. It's very relevant to know what is actually happening.

"Shoulda, coulda, woulda." Stating how they should do things is futile consider in it won't make a difference as to how schools will approach the decision. Also, if you you're self haven't had to make these decisions, then it's an uninformed "shoulda." First hand experience trumps.

Lastly, I think so many of us forget that we aren't necessarily competing for spots on a one-to-one basis. It would be counterproductive to pit similar candidate against each other. What you're arguing was somewhat addressed with LizzyM's staircase analogy. What more is left to discuss?

Edit: also when I read your initial posts, the tone used seemed to indicate that what is wrote is what happens on adcoms.

Agreed. Nobody here cares how things "should be". On an advice board people only care how things are.

 

[Law2Doc]

I meant the discussion between me and the people responding to me. I am not an adcom and I have no idea what adcoms do. I'm sorry my tone came across that way. You're right that there isn't much left to discuss. But people kept responding, claiming that I am way off base, which is why the discussion kept going.

Again you are off base in terms of what actually happens. And that's all everybody here but you is posting about. Not the ideal.

 

[BeancheBlanco]

Agreed. Nobody here cares how things "should be". On an advice board people only care how things are.

I care, sweetie. I care.