All EVEN during interviews??

[caprisun]

---

Members do not see this ad.

.

 

[Zendoc]

OOO, good question. Interested to see someone answer that knows what they're talkin' about. Thanks for thinking of this.

🙂 Good luck!

So I was thinking about it today and I'm not sure if anyone can answer this for sure besides ADCOM members.

When applicants are invited to an interview, are they all pretty much on an even playing ground for acceptance? So after reaching the interview level, do adcoms pretty much look past the AMCAS/secondaries?

Here's where my question stems from: Can applicants who have amazing stats (GPA/MCAT) do poorer during interviews and still have an equal chance of getting in as an applicant with mediocre stats and an amazing interview? Or does the interview mean everything once you reach that level?

(ignore borderline applicants where an interview can push them over the edge)

 

[caprisun]

.

 

[Law2Doc]

So I was thinking about it today and I'm not sure if anyone can answer this for sure besides ADCOM members.

When applicants are invited to an interview, are they all pretty much on an even playing ground for acceptance? So after reaching the interview level, do adcoms pretty much look past the AMCAS/secondaries?

Here's where my question stems from: Can applicants who have amazing stats (GPA/MCAT) do poorer during interviews and still have an equal chance of getting in as an applicant with mediocre stats and an amazing interview? Or does the interview mean everything once you reach that level?

(ignore borderline applicants where an interview can push them over the edge)

Depends on the school. Many places deem everyone they invite for an interview to be potentially admissible. Others, particularly those with auto-invites, will revisit the paper app. But at most places, even if the school revisits the application, the interview is going to be a huge component of admissions when you get to that stage. So yes, generally someone who does poorer during interviews will not have an equal chance of getting in - and effectively will have blown it. In med school you will meet many examples of folks with "adequate" stats who swear they got a lot of mileage on their personality (and some who have subsequently been told by adcom members that this was the case). You will also see a ton of "paper tigers" who had great paper stats, but interviewed themselves right to a spot on the waitlist -- you see many back on SDN every cycle. Bottom line -- prepare for the interview, it is hugely important. Act like it's the only game in town, because in at least some cases it will be.

 

[ADeadLois]

Sadly, there is no consistent answer to this question. EVERY school is different.
If I had to make an educated conclusion from my experience, then my short answer would be no, you are NOT on a level playing field at the interview. This isn't to say the performing well on a interview won't make up for lower stats.

A good rule of thumb is that an interview offer means that you are an "acceptable" candidate. How acceptable of a candidate still depends heavily on your "stats".Offering an interview is a huge investment on the part of the school (more so than most applicants realize), so they won't waste their time with someone they won't accept. Just keep in mind, however, that every school varies as to how important interview performance is in regards to your total application package.

 

[medguy83]

it's kind of iffy. In general, I think a really good interview doesn't add much. It's good, don't get me wrong, but unless you're an antisocial nut you're pretty much on equal footing with everyone else. A bad interview, well that may be another story in my opinion. The last thing you need is for some interviewer to be reminded by her ex-husband when you walk in the door. One little nasty tidbit I've heard is that many schools don't take too kindly to overweight applicants. I know a girl who had a 34+ mcat, 3.8 gpa, stellar activities, but a very large size. She applied three years in a row to so many schools to no avail. Every time she was either told that the applicant pool was unusually strong this season, or she had a poor interview. This type of situation is so sad. I don't know why I'm ranting about this seeing as how it doesn't have much to do with the topic, but I feel so bad for her.

 

[ADeadLois]

I know a girl who had a 34+ mcat, 3.8 gpa, stellar activities, but a very large size. She applied three years in a row to so many schools to no avail. Every time she was either told that the applicant pool was unusually strong this season, or she had a poor interview. This type of situation is so sad. I don't know why I'm ranting about this seeing as how it doesn't have much to do with the topic, but I feel so bad for her.

I call BS, if you're being serious. I don't know this girl, but I'm going to make a prediction. She had a major (non-weight) related red flag (bad LOR, poor interview performance) on her application, but assumed that her rejection was based on weight. Instead of addressing the issue, she blamed it on the weight and didn't do anything to improve her application.

 

[Picklesali]

This is actually something that I've been wondering about. I've been told that weight discrimination does NOT occur in the medical school admissions process. But when I think about the stereotypes given to fat people (lazy, unmotivated, lacking self-control) I start to wonder... Especially when you consider the percentage of the population that is overweight I feel like I should see a few more chubby med students in that shiny catalog. Is it just that the percentage of pre-meds who are overweight are much less, because they are generally more health-conscious? Does anyone have some real information about this? Med students - how many overweight people are in your class??

 

[ADeadLois]

This is actually something that I've been wondering about. I've been told that weight discrimination does NOT occur in the medical school admissions process. But when I think about the stereotypes given to fat people (lazy, unmotivated, lacking self-control) I start to wonder... Especially when you consider the percentage of the population that is overweight I feel like I should see a few more chubby med students in that shiny catalog. Is it just that the percentage of pre-meds who are overweight are much less, because they are generally more health-conscious? Does anyone have some real information about this? Med students - how many overweight people are in your class??

I think SDN just reached a whole new pantheon.

 

[medguy83]

I call BS, if you're being serious. I don't know this girl, but I'm going to make a prediction. She had a major (non-weight) related red flag (bad LOR, poor interview performance) on her application, but assumed that her rejection was based on weight. Instead of addressing the issue, she blamed it on the weight and didn't do anything to improve her application.

She told me she got interviews the first time around. The second time, she got none to the ones she had already applied to. There may have been other flags on her app that I'm unaware of, or facts she didn't divulge to me. All I know is that she was fairly big and is currently doing grad work in chemistry. I think it would be interesting to see how weight might play into applications. To be honest, I've never really seen too many "big" med students either.

 

[apnea]

haha, ironically today some nasty old lady in Office Depot today told me i was too LITTLE to be a doctor 🙄

Admittedly she probably doesn't have much pull with adcoms...but i've never been spoken harshly to because i WASN'T overweight.

 

[jochi1543]

To be honest, I've never really seen too many "big" med students either.

Probably not a big surprise, given how obesity is more likely to plague low-income and minority segments of the population, who are less likely to even enter the admissions process.

 

[ADeadLois]

She told me she got interviews the first time around. The second time, she got none to the ones she had already applied to.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor? If you get rejected the first time around, the school won't interview you again unless make improvements to whatever caused you to be rejected. This is likely the case. Interviews in successive application cycles are not totally independent events.

 

[Law2Doc]

It's good, don't get me wrong, but unless you're an antisocial nut you're pretty much on equal footing with everyone else.

I continue to think this kind of SDN comment is actually pretty inaccurate and really dangerous to go into interviews believing. The point of the interview is NOT to weed out antisocial nuts or crazies, despite the fact that uninformed premeds repeat that suggestion on SDN each year -- it is the battle cry of the folks who are good on paper and don't want to face the facts that all that can crash and burn in one hour of face time. The percentage of antisocial nuts in the applicant pool is really quite nominal, and even the craziest guy/gal can usually hold it together for an interview.

Yet a very large percentage of folks who are not antisocial/crazy simply don't interview successfully (not coincidently I think it's about the same percentage that show up on SDN complaining that the process is a crapshoot). The truth of the matter is there are people who interview better than others -- it is not a matter of everyone being "on equal footing" if they don't screw up. There is a very definite range of interview abilities -- it isn't a giant pack of equality you are fine if you stay within. If you go into the interview with the "just don't screw up" attitude, you have already screwed up. When a school accepts 1 out of 3 interviewees, its usually the 1 out of 3 who interview better. You have to look at it that that 1 spot is yours to win, but you have to really sell yourself to beat out the other two. The interview is huge, no matter what your paper stats are.

The good thing is that interviewing is a learnable skill, something you can prepare for, so practice, practice, practice. Do mock interviews if you have that option, or have friends/family interview you if you don't. Know what questions you will ask about each school, and have an idea of what you will say if you are asked the more expected questions. And be enthusiastic, interested, engaged, and not arrogant.

 

[HumidBeing]

Thank you, Law2Doc.

One of the most memorable things anyone ever said to me was that having the necessary skills and knowledge might open doors, but that charisma and the ability to communicate well are what take you places. It was at an interview. I HAD to be the least qualified candidate on paper, but I lucked out because we 'clicked'. It's a line I'd remember even if I hadn't been invited to join because it sounds so true.

I don't have the experience to know, but imagine that the unvoiced interview questions are, "Do you fit in here? Are you someone we want to join our family? Do you make us uncomfortable?"

 

[sendwich]

it really depends on the school. some schools put their interviewees on the same playing field. others still look at your primaries/secondaries (ie each portion is given points) when deciding who gets accepted. honestly, i think most schools are the latter.

 

[notdeadyet]

The point of the interview is NOT to weed out antisocial nuts or crazies, despite the fact that uninformed premeds repeat that suggestion on SDN each year -- it is the battle cry of the folks who are good on paper and don't want to face the facts that all that can crash and burn in one hour of face time.

Good advice here. I get the impression that lots of folks on SDN seem to think that a large chunk of applicants are going to be extremely shy introverts or wacky social misfits. This percentage is actually quite tiny.

Most folks you'll meet on the interview trail are pretty normal, many are quite dynamic and lots are real superstars. You really do need to make an impression during the interview, not just not embarass yourself.

As to being on equal footing, I think the number of schools that level the playing field once you interview is definitely a minority. Every school I interviewed at but one still took your stats into account when making final decisions.

 

[EyeballLove]

I don't know if this really answers the questions, but my PI, who was on the admission committee for several years interviewing applicants at his previous school (a top medical school) told me interviews are definitely a deal-breaker (at least for him...or at that school)

If he was interviewing someone who excelled on paper, he wouldn't be impressed if the applicant interviewed well because in a way, that person was "expected" to interview well when he/she walked into the door (so of course, it woudl really backfire if he/she interviewed poorly)

On the other hand, what really, really impressed him (and he got all excited talking about this) was when someone who didn't do so well on paper had an outstanding interview...now that someone, in my PI's own words, would be a true star...and he would pick that person any day over the good paper applicant.

Again, that's just my PI's two cents, and I'm not too sure if this answers the OP's question 😎

 

[alwaysaangel]

As to being on equal footing, I think the number of schools that level the playing field once you interview is definitely a minority. Every school I interviewed at but one still took your stats into account when making final decisions.

Agreed. I only interviewed at 4 places last year (I can't believe some people go to like 20 even with an acceptance in hand - how can you stay sane when traveling that much?!?!), but pretty much every single one went over their general admissions process after the interview for us interviewees. And they all said something along the lines of: "Your interviews counts but it isn't the whole decision, we take the interview reports, your secondary, primary, LORs and grades into account to make a decision on your file."

Does anyone know of a specific school that has actually told applicants. "Congrats - now you're in the interview and you're all on even ground - this next hour is EVERYTHING - don't screw it up." I have to be honest I'd be pretty surprised if very many schools used that kind of system. But seriously -can anyone name a specific school that definitely does that?

 

[Rikkye]

well i heard of a scoring board

you get points for the strength of your app and points for your interview, they sum it up and choose those with high scores, at least i know that's how they do it in dental

 

[EyeballLove]

I call BS, if you're being serious. I don't know this girl, but I'm going to make a prediction. She had a major (non-weight) related red flag (bad LOR, poor interview performance) on her application, but assumed that her rejection was based on weight. Instead of addressing the issue, she blamed it on the weight and didn't do anything to improve her application.

That person can't be serious right? I don't think adcom would discriminate based on the fact that she's "big" (whatever that's supposed to mean)

but I have to say, I always joke about how one has to be good-looking to be a resident at my school😎

 

[drizzt3117]

Does anyone know of a specific school that has actually told applicants. "Congrats - now you're in the interview and you're all on even ground - this next hour is EVERYTHING - don't screw it up." I have to be honest I'd be pretty surprised if very many schools used that kind of system. But seriously -can anyone name a specific school that definitely does that?

Someone said at OHSU the interview counts for 85% of the admission decision... that makes it seem like it's essentially the deciding factor.

 

[hermit]

To be honest, I've never really seen too many "big" med students either.

I noticed this myself several weeks ago after observing a bunch of med students at the hospital. For various reasons, I've been in relatively close proximity to med and dental students for the last ten years or so. Out of all of them, there were 2 fat ones I can think of. Two out of hundreds. Conscious or unconscious adcom discrimination, it got me back in the gym before my interviews start.

 

[Law2Doc]

well i heard of a scoring board

you get points for the strength of your app and points for your interview, they sum it up and choose those with high scores, at least i know that's how they do it in dental

Lots of places have the interviewer give the interview a score, but the issue is how it is weighted. Quite a few committees give more weight to the interview than any other factor, where the other factors have already been used to determine who gets interviewed.
Great on paper but average in person is thus a recipe for the waitlist.

 

[limpkitty]

I don't know if this really answers the questions, but my PI, who was on the admission committee for several years interviewing applicants at his previous school (a top medical school) told me interviews are definitely a deal-breaker (at least for him...or at that school)

If he was interviewing someone who excelled on paper, he wouldn't be impressed if the applicant interviewed well because in a way, that person was "expected" to interview well when he/she walked into the door (so of course, it woudl really backfire if he/she interviewed poorly)

On the other hand, what really, really impressed him (and he got all excited talking about this) was when someone who didn't do so well on paper had an outstanding interview...now that someone, in my PI's own words, would be a true star...and he would pick that person any day over the good paper applicant.

Again, that's just my PI's two cents, and I'm not too sure if this answers the OP's question 😎

So your PI prefers an applicant w/ mediocore stats who interviews well to one w/ great stas that interviews just as well because the former exceeded expectations?

 

[Law2Doc]

So your PI prefers an applicant w/ mediocore stats who interviews well to one w/ great stas that interviews just as well because the former exceeded expectations?

I think you miss the point of schools selecting people to interview. Once you have made that cut nobody is "mediocre" anymore -- they are all potentially admissible. There will always be a range of stats, no matter where you decide to make the cut, but the issue is whether you make that matter anymore. Given that playing field, I think a LOT of adcoms want to therafter pick people who are personable over people who look good on paper. This is not unexpected given that the practice of medicine is more of a service industry than a science. In med school you will, in fact meet a ton of people who fit the example the prior poster described -- ok on paper but very dynamic in real life. This matters.

 

[etf]

Lots of places have the interviewer give the interview a score, but the issue is how it is weighted. Quite a few committees give more weight to the interview than any other factor, where the other factors have already been used to determine who gets interviewed.
Great on paper but average in person is thus a recipe for the waitlist.

i'm an average on paper, slightly above average in person type of guy, and it seems like those ingredients bake into a waitlist as well.

 

[emttim]

I noticed this myself several weeks ago after observing a bunch of med students at the hospital. For various reasons, I've been in relatively close proximity to med and dental students for the last ten years or so. Out of all of them, there were 2 fat ones I can think of. Two out of hundreds. Conscious or unconscious adcom discrimination, it got me back in the gym before my interviews start.

There could be a less-discriminative reason for this too. From what I've seen and read over the past two years....Given the lifestyle of medical students, and how poor they are, and the fact that at least in 3rd and 4th year they are on their feet a LOT, it's probably rather difficult for a medical student to stay fat or get fat in the first place due to the fact you need to be able to afford a surplus of food before you can get overweight off eating said surplus.

 

[Law2Doc]

i'm an average on paper, slightly above average in person type of guy, and it seems like those ingredients bake into a waitlist as well.

Keep practicing and preparing. It's difficult for you to even know if you are being perceived as "above average in person" -- you are unlikely to have met enough applicants to know what average is. Most likely you are hanging in the pack, underestimating your competition. But you want to come across better than "slightly above average" at any rate.

 

[Law2Doc]

There could be a less-discriminative reason for this too. From what I've seen and read over the past two years....Given the lifestyle of medical students, and how poor they are, and the fact that at least in 3rd and 4th year they are on their feet a LOT, it's probably rather difficult for a medical student to stay fat or get fat in the first place due to the fact you need to be able to afford a surplus of food before you can get overweight off eating said surplus.

The later years of med school folks will frequently lose weight. It has nothing to do with the cost of food (at some places, there are plenty of free meals), and everything to do with the fact that you will be running around after residents all day, and will simply not have time for many, many meals. Eg. If a surgery starts at 11:00am and goes 6 hours, no lunch for you. String a couple of surgeries back to back and you are lucky if you get more than a power bar for dinner.

 

[sanchopanza]

The later years of med school folks will frequently lose weight. It has nothing to do with the cost of food (at some places, there are plenty of free meals), and everything to do with the fact that you will be running around after residents all day, and will simply not have time for many, many meals. Eg. If a surgery starts at 11:00am and goes 6 hours, no lunch for you. String a couple of surgeries back to back and you are lucky if you get more than a power bar for dinner.

Depends on the person and situation, of course. That kind of lifestyle (infrequent eating, little time to plan/cook meals, little time for exercise) can be a recipe for weight GAIN. My two friends who are through with the process both admit that they were unhealthiest and most overweight during this time.

 

[limpkitty]

I think you miss the point of schools selecting people to interview. Once you have made that cut nobody is "mediocre" anymore -- they are all potentially admissible. There will always be a range of stats, no matter where you decide to make the cut, but the issue is whether you make that matter anymore. Given that playing field, I think a LOT of adcoms want to therafter pick people who are personable over people who look good on paper. This is not unexpected given that the practice of medicine is more of a service industry than a science. In med school you will, in fact meet a ton of people who fit the example the prior poster described -- ok on paper but very dynamic in real life. This matters.

And I think you miss my sarcasim. And this thread is riduculous, of course a 40/4.0 and a 30/3.5 are not going to be considered equal when going into the interview. And I love how people assume that everyone w/ great stats is a boring nerd in person

 

[hermit]

...you need to be able to afford a surplus of food before you can get overweight off eating...

I don't know about CA, but around here fast food is a lot cheaper than healthy alternatives. Ramen noodles go 10 for a dollar and the McDonald's $1 menu is pretty extensive.

 

[silverlining1]

I don't know about CA, but around here fast food is a lot cheaper than healthy alternatives. Ramen noodles go 10 for a dollar and the McDonald's $1 menu is pretty extensive.

This is true in CA as well 🙂 Depends where you get your ramen and what kind it is, though; can range from 10 cents to $2. Yes, I am a ramen connoisseur.

 

[RPedigo]

I don't know about CA, but around here fast food is a lot cheaper than healthy alternatives. Ramen noodles go 10 for a dollar and the McDonald's $1 menu is pretty extensive.

To be perfectly fair, cooking for yourself is much less expensive.

I'm looking at the weekly specials on a local grocery store, and it looks like I can get 8 ears of corn for $2, Bumble Bee cans of tuna for $0.88 each, and chicken drumsticks for about $0.80/lb.

I agree that fast food is extremely cheap and accessible, but cooking is much cheaper. I have a rice cooker and bags of rice, and that's unbelievably cheap if I need to add a carbohydrate to a meal. Pasta is similarly inexpensive.

 

[ADeadLois]

I don't know about CA, but around here fast food is a lot cheaper than healthy alternatives.

If you do the calculations, healthy food is significantly cheaper.

 

[Law2Doc]

... this thread is riduculous, of course a 40/4.0 and a 30/3.5 are not going to be considered equal when going into the interview.

You say "of course", yet I could point to quite a few examples where the latter person got the spot and the former didn't. Talk to a few adcom members and you may get a very different sense of the process than you seem ot have. The importance of the interview is not to be taken lightly. Practice and prepare.

 

[Law2Doc]

Depends on the person and situation, of course. That kind of lifestyle (infrequent eating, little time to plan/cook meals, little time for exercise) can be a recipe for weight GAIN. My two friends who are through with the process both admit that they were unhealthiest and most overweight during this time.

I agree it depends on the health you start with, but most of the people I know come out of rotations pretty gaunt -- the issue is really one of time and activity level. If you are running around the hospital 70 hours a week, on your feet constantly, and frequently only having time to eat whatever you happen to have in the pockets of your white coat half the time, you are going to lose weight. You won't be cooking as often (you leave too early and get home too late) and will eat crappy cafeteria/fast food more often (as you won't have time to leave the building), but that is counterbalanced by the fact that you likely will miss a lot of meals. It's an unhealthy lifestyle for sure, you won't be working out much and the quality of the food you eat will be worse, but the quantity will be less. Basically a forced "portion control" diet.

 

[njbmd]

So I was thinking about it today and I'm not sure if anyone can answer this for sure besides ADCOM members.

When applicants are invited to an interview, are they all pretty much on an even playing ground for acceptance? So after reaching the interview level, do adcoms pretty much look past the AMCAS/secondaries?

Here's where my question stems from: Can applicants who have amazing stats (GPA/MCAT) do poorer during interviews and still have an equal chance of getting in as an applicant with mediocre stats and an amazing interview? Or does the interview mean everything once you reach that level?

(ignore borderline applicants where an interview can push them over the edge)

No, all applicants are not "even" in terms of acceptance. Applicants can help or hurt themselves on the interview and in more than a few cases, an applicant that is otherwise competitive can end up tanking themselves with a poor interview. We don't "look past" any portion of your application and we do "rank" applicants in terms of offer of admission.

 

[Tarpley]

I think it depends on luck and on school...

the whole interview process seems like luck on who you get..
I have a friend who got into med school w/ mcat 22 ; gpa; 3.6ish.. early decision!! and this friend says its b/c of her interview where she got a 4th year med student... definitely lucky!!

 

[limpkitty]

You say "of course", yet I could point to quite a few examples where the latter person got the spot and the former didn't. Talk to a few adcom members and you may get a very different sense of the process than you seem ot have. The importance of the interview is not to be taken lightly. Practice and prepare.

You idiot, I never said that the person w/ higher stats would always get in. Obviously that's not the case. What I did say is that the person with higher stats has an ADVANTAGE, which should be obvious to any ***** with half a brain.

Look, I'm not one of those people who says that the interview is only to weed out antisocial freaks, but to say that, once you get to that stage, the interview is the only thing that matters is ******ed.

Frankly, you come off as an a**hole on these forums when you're always talking down to people and acting like you know more than everyone else does. Just because you have 12,000 posts on SDN doesn't make you an expert about jack-****.

 

[UCDavisISokay]

I think it depends on luck and on school...

the whole interview process seems like luck on who you get..
I have a friend who got into med school w/ mcat 22 ; gpa; 3.6ish.. early decision!! and this friend says its b/c of her interview where she got a 4th year med student... definitely lucky!!

a URM?

 

[littlealex]

Well I think you have to realize that a lot of the interviewers themselves are not on the admissions committee. They just submit an interview report ot the committee and it is considered along with the rest of the application.

At the end of the day, interviews can definitely be the deal BREAKER, but most people have relatively pleasant interviews and spectacular interviews are rare. Interviews help the medical schools get a better picture of who you are, but it is not the sole determining aspect.

The admission committees compare your interview results ALONG with the rest of your package. There's no way to conclusively decide between a mediocre applicant with a great interview and a strong applicant with a bad interview, because it really is a judgement call by the adcoms.

My money is on the guy with strong stats and a good interview.

Why do you even worry about this? At this point there's nothing you can really do to dramatically affect your stats. Just prepare for the interviews and do your best. The rest is up to the adcom gods.

 

[drizzt3117]

It just depends on the school. Interviews range in importance from more or less the whole decision (OHSU) to very little (Wisconsin) and most schools are likely more or less in between. As littlealex said, it doesn't really matter b/c your stats are essentially set in stone now anyways.

 

[EyeballLove]

I think you miss the point of schools selecting people to interview. Once you have made that cut nobody is "mediocre" anymore -- they are all potentially admissible. There will always be a range of stats, no matter where you decide to make the cut, but the issue is whether you make that matter anymore. Given that playing field, I think a LOT of adcoms want to therafter pick people who are personable over people who look good on paper. This is not unexpected given that the practice of medicine is more of a service industry than a science. In med school you will, in fact meet a ton of people who fit the example the prior poster described -- ok on paper but very dynamic in real life. This matters.

Thank you, Law2Doc

 

[EyeballLove]

There could be a less-discriminative reason for this too. From what I've seen and read over the past two years....Given the lifestyle of medical students, and how poor they are, and the fact that at least in 3rd and 4th year they are on their feet a LOT, it's probably rather difficult for a medical student to stay fat or get fat in the first place due to the fact you need to be able to afford a surplus of food before you can get overweight off eating said surplus.

Hahahaha....good point... so as a pre-med, we should all eat as much as we can now😕 Hehe...😉

 

[EyeballLove]

This is true in CA as well 🙂 Depends where you get your ramen and what kind it is, though; can range from 10 cents to $2. Yes, I am a ramen connoisseur.

Hehehehe
Too many great things to eat. That's why Cali is so great 😉