Analyzing interview skills....should we talk about numbers/ECs/LORs?

[md-2020]

---

Members do not see this ad.

We frequently tell unsuccessful applicants who receive a few II's but no acceptances that their "interview skills" need work. But both on SDN and irl, I've come across some people who've been interviewing, but have very borderline stats/ECs/stuff on paper. In these cases, should we be focusing on their interview performances, or are they not getting in b/c they're going into these interviews with an already minuscule chance of acceptance?

TLDR: how much of your "interview performance" actually matters when it comes to final decision? Are there instances in which someone is getting interviews but not acceptances where they should be addressing MCAT/GPA/ECs instead of interview prep?

 

[bananafish94]

I don't think anyone goes into interviews with an "already minuscule chance of acceptance." That would defeat the entire purpose. Some people probably have a little bit more leeway with their interviews.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Each school probably has their own LizzyM staircase metrics i.e. how much a given applicant can move up or down after their interview.

I first wrote this in 2012 but it still holds true:

My school doesn't really use numbers in this way but let me give you an example that roughly approximates what happens at one school.

Imagine a huge, broad staircase with numbered stairs. On interview day, the applicants are on the stair that corresponds to their LizzyM* score. An applicant that is very impressive on interview might be moved up one stair or more. Most applicants are going to remain where they are... not going up or down. Some student who do or say something absolutely terrible might be sent down 10 steps, or more. In some cases, an applicant that didn't impress the interviewers but wasn't horrible might go down a step or three.

Now where is everyone? Starting at the top of the staircase, we admit students until we max out the number we can safely admit (without becoming oversubscribed). Obviously, scores and grades still matter but those who are great on interview can jump ahead and those who bomb will be demoted to the bottom of the waitlist or outright rejected.

 

[mr.mkitty]

My experiences tell me that it had little to do with my interviews. I felt like the schools already knew whether or not they were going to accept or waitlist me before the actual interview. This is simply how I felt, I obviously can't conclusively say one way or another.

 

[ace_inhibitor111]

https://www.aamc.org/download/410078/data/mcatacademicmedicinearticles.pdf

Page 37. Interview performance is considered the most important deciding factor for acceptance but they still consider everything else after. It is likely that they invite some people to interview knowing they need to do phenomenal in order to get in, but also invite others that look great on paper and only have to do "decent enough" to get in.

 

[AnnaSunH]

It would be interesting to know how many people do mock interviews before actual interviews. I feel like a lot of people assume they have great interview skills when that may not be the case.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[GrapesofRath]

Not everybody is on the same playing field going into an interview. Its to a fair extent SDN gospel that if you get an interview you should look at it as "your spot to lose" and "if you don't screw up the interview you got it".

To answer your question most directly the old saying is "interview 3 an MD you will be" a relatively reasonable generalization at something impossible to generalize. Most schools accept say 40-50% post II. When I see someone get >3 MD interviews and no acceptances even with an otherwise average app it starts becoming less and less likely the interview didn't play any role in that or at least could have maybe gone a little better. Far from absolute though. I do agree for your average applicant once you start talking about lower II totals than that it becomes trickier to pin how much If any of their problem is the II. Getting interviews does not mean it's not possible for your stats to still be hurting you. If part of your stats are below avg ( <3.45-3.5 sGPA <30-31 MCAT depending on other factors) you should definitely consider addressing them for a reapp

Other times even <3 IIs is enough suspect something might be up with the interviews. When a 3.9/34 type app is getting rejected post II at their state school( in most states) that alone is a pretty decent indicator there's a decent chance the interview didn't go all that great. Likewise when a 3.9/38 applicant isn't getting in post II at the Kecks or Einsteins of the world that again is a sign to potentially look at the interview

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

I felt like it has to vary a ton by school and probably has roots in how they do the pre and post interview evaluation of students. If you're interviewing at a school like Tulane where they interview 500 to seat a 200 person class (ie. they're almost certainly accepting >50% of interviewees), it's pretty clear that the interview is mostly a formality. They're more checking to make sure you're not insane, since most of the discussion on "fit" and metrics had already taken place.

Compare that to a place like Pitt or Columbia who interview upwards of 1000 people for the same number of seats. I'll bet you the people getting accepted did pretty well in the interviewes.


As for discussion of "marginal" candidates specifically, I'd wager there's probably more weight placed on their interview vs others. If you're some with a deficiency or red flag, it's logical to think every other part of the app must be stellar in order to convince adcoms to take that risk.

 

[bandwagoner]

Not everybody is on the same playing field going into an interview. Its to a fair extent SDN gospel that if you get an interview you should look at it as "your spot to lose" and "if you don't screw up the interview you got it".

To answer your question most directly the old saying is "interview 3 an MD you will be" a relatively reasonable generalization at something impossible to generalize. Most schools accept say 40-50% post II. When I see someone get >3 MD interviews and no acceptances even with an otherwise average app it starts becoming less and less likely the interview didn't play any role in that or at least could have maybe gone a little better. Far from absolute though. I do agree for your average applicant once you start talking about lower II totals than that it becomes trickier to pin how much If any of their problem is the II. Getting interviews does not mean it's not possible for your stats to still be hurting you. If part of your stats are below avg ( <3.45-3.5 sGPA <30-31 MCAT depending on other factors) you should definitely consider addressing them for a reapp

Other times even <3 IIs is enough suspect something might be up with the interviews. When a 3.9/34 type app is getting rejected post II at their state school( in most states) that alone is a pretty decent indicator there's a decent chance the interview didn't go all that great. Likewise when a 3.9/38 applicant isn't getting in post II at the Kecks or Einsteins of the world that again is a sign to potentially look at the interview

I think its likely even more complex as well. For example, you are a "borderline stats" URM vs "borderline stats" Asian/White. You both performed equally well on the interview (or even rocked it). However, there may be more incentive for adcoms to put the Asian/White person on the WL simply because there are many people in front of them who did just as well on the interview but have better application stats. This is of course pure speculation, but it might explain why ultimately someone is not offered an acceptance post-interview?

 

[DokterMom]

We frequently tell unsuccessful applicants who receive a few II's but no acceptances that their "interview skills" need work. But both on SDN and irl, I've come across some people who've been interviewing, but have very borderline stats/ECs/stuff on paper. In these cases, should we be focusing on their interview performances, or are they not getting in b/c they're going into these interviews with an already minuscule chance of acceptance?

TLDR: how much of your "interview performance" actually matters when it comes to final decision? Are there instances in which someone is getting interviews but not acceptances where they should be addressing MCAT/GPA/ECs instead of interview prep?

Seems reasonable that applicants with lowish numbers who receive interview invitations are invited for reasons other than their numbers. Offhand, I can think of a few main reasons for this:

• Great or highly unusual personal statement
• Great or highly unusual extra-curriculars
• Great or highly unusual back-story including overcoming significant obstacles, URM, SES issues
• Connections, strings, courtesy interviews, etc.

The first two could certainly fall far short of their initially-perceived specialness, leaving a "looked better on paper" feeling of disappointment. The obstacles might still be problematic, may have been exaggerated, or the applicant might still be in the middle of a pity party, so what looked like a great bootstraps story kinda isn't. And the courtesy interview might have been just that -- a courtesy.

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

I have had nontrads with complex life stories and seemingly horrible GPAs (like 3.0-3.3) get into Pitt, Mayo, and Columbia.
.

Yea that makes sense. I would imagine a non-trad with a great backstory would probably do very well standing out among a hoard of 1000+ interviewees.


I guess my overall point is that someone with interviews to 3 schools where the interviewee:acceptance ratio is high (like Pitt) could be a perfectly fine interviewer but still not garner an acceptance.

Meanwhile someone with 3 unsuccessful IIs at places where the majority of interviewees get accepted (like Tulane) probably had a bad interview skills.

 

[Goro]

We Americans are addicted to rags-to-riches stories...it's in our DNA. Hence, persons with a compelling story always attract the eyeballs to apps.

Yea that makes sense. I would imagine a non-trad with a great backstory would probably do very well standing out among a hoard of 1000+ interviewees.


I guess my overall point is that someone with interviews to 3 schools where the interviewee:acceptance ratio is high (like Pitt) could be a perfectly fine interviewer but still not garner an acceptance.

Meanwhile someone with 3 unsuccessful IIs at places where the majority of interviewees get accepted (like Tulane) probably had a bad interview skills.

 

[onceandforall]

Just my personal situation: Received 9 interviews, accepted at 6, waitlisted at 3. The three places I am waitlisted are by far "reaches" for me. I am under the fiftieth percentile for MCAT at all. In other words, if they accept me, they would need to accept someone with an MCAT higher than their median all else equal, if the goal is to maintain the median. I feel like I could have promised these schools both of my ovaries (which I actually would be okay with lol) and it wouldn't have mattered (except I would have looked weird, but the example is just to make a point). What I am trying to say is that I don't feel like all else is equal once you get an interview. I suppose that I could have bombed just those three interviews due to the pressure, but that seems unlikely.

 

[Midnight Schemes]

Also n=1, my personal experience this cycle has been 5 II resulting in all waitlists. I consider myself a pretty average applicant when it comes to numbers (LizzyM=65) , and most of the schools I got II at interview lots of people per seat (Albany, GW, Drexel). I definitely feel that my interview performance would have been acceptable if I had higher numbers.

Maybe it's I'm rationalizing why I didn't get any outright acceptances, but I feel that for someone with a 3.9 GPA and a 34 MCAT they just have to show up to the interview and present themselves with a baseline level of manners and not be a sociopath to get in, where as someone with a 3.4 and 29 would have to give a stellar performance at the interview.

 

[bunnyg]

Also n=1, my personal experience this cycle has been 5 II resulting in all waitlists. I consider myself a pretty average applicant when it comes to numbers (LizzyM=65) , and most of the schools I got II at interview lots of people per seat (Albany, GW, Drexel). I definitely feel that my interview performance would have been acceptable if I had higher numbers.

Maybe it's I'm rationalizing why I didn't get any outright acceptances, but I feel that for someone with a 3.9 GPA and a 34 MCAT they just have to show up to the interview and present themselves with a baseline level of manners and not be a sociopath to get in, where as someone with a 3.4 and 29 would have to give a stellar performance at the interview.

I beg to differ.. 5 IIs, 4 WLs, 1 rejection with a 3.8/34 🙁
I think you need to do far better than a "baseline level of manners".

 

[Moko]

I beg to differ.. 5 IIs, 4 WLs, 1 rejection with a 3.8/34 🙁
I think you need to do far better than a "baseline level of manners".

If only that 3.8 had been a 3.9...

On a serious note though, there's still hope this cycle! Good luck!

 

[trynahelp]

8 waitlists, most very selective/highly ranked schools.
2 acceptances, immediate turnaround, 1 selective/highly ranked school.
1 post interview rejection.

Unremarkable stats, interesting story and great ECs/LORs, felt like my interviews were good in most cases and have been in the past for jobs and other things, but who knows. Feel as though threshold for interview was a little higher based on that, but I could also just be the champion of lukewarm first impressions.

Either way, I'm in to a place I love and I can't complain! Gonna get an MD, even if location is not yet 100% confirmed. Good luck everyone else deciding or waiting to hear!

EDIT: To actually contribute to the discussion and expand on my point above, I definitely think that they interview a broad range of people but tend towards the "safer bets" in terms of GPA/MCAT combo, and for some schools research pubs. I had a lot of interviewers bring up things they really liked from my application and letters, but even the places where the interviewers assured me they would love to have me there obviously didn't turn out to be sure things. So I would agree that despite the mantra of only interviewing those that could handle the school, numbers really drive home the acceptance. But I could also just be really salty.

 

[onceandforall]

8 waitlists, most very selective/highly ranked schools.
2 acceptances, immediate turnaround, 1 selective/highly ranked school.
1 post interview rejection.

Unremarkable stats, interesting story and great ECs/LORs, felt like my interviews were good in most cases and have been in the past for jobs and other things, but who knows. Feel as though threshold for interview was a little higher based on that, but I could also just be the champion of lukewarm first impressions.

Either way, I'm in to a place I love and I can't complain! Gonna get an MD, even if location is not yet 100% confirmed. Good luck everyone else deciding or waiting to hear!

EDIT: To actually contribute to the discussion and expand on my point above, I definitely think that they interview a broad range of people but tend towards the "safer bets" in terms of GPA/MCAT combo, and for some schools research pubs. I had a lot of interviewers bring up things they really liked from my application and letters, but even the places where the interviewers assured me they would love to have me there obviously didn't turn out to be sure things. So I would agree that despite the mantra of only interviewing those that could handle the school, numbers really drive home the acceptance. But I could also just be really salty.

I think this is a really good synopsis (but obviously I would agree given what I wrote above).

 

[XxThaDoggxX]

We Americans are addicted to rags-to-riches stories...it's in our DNA. Hence, persons with a compelling story always attract the eyeballs to apps.

My app would suggest otherwise

 

[mcatjelly]

Ugh, I feel like I'm one of the people this post refers to haha. 4 IIs --> 4 WLs. 3.79 GPA (3.7 BCPM), 508 MCAT (125s in B/B and C/P), with a well-written PS and "non-cookie cutter" ECs. Did 4 mock interviews (2 with science faculty, 1 with premed advisor, 1 with someone in the business world who frequently interviews), which yielded only positive feedback.

The only glaring red flags I see are my 125s and only 20ish shadowing hours. And obviously my interview skills still aren't perfection. So I don't know! This has certainly been an experience.

 

[onceandforall]

I will also add this-- at the most selective schools I applied (i.e. the ones where I am waitlisted), I left like my interviews were a bit different. I felt like I had to do more self-advocacy and bring out the interest in them. There were not as many cues that I could grab onto and run with, not as many social niceties to put me at ease . Compare this to many of the places I was accepted outright where it seemed like they demonstrated a good understanding of me from the outset and did more to make sure that the interview experience was positive (I'm sure they do this for others and not just me FYI). At these places, the interviews felt like a trampoline where I would come down from an answer and their follow-up question would shoot me back up again by allowing me to highlight something more in-depth about an experience, etc. Looking back, it is interesting to reflect on how the demeanor of the interviewer, their questions, and seeming level of interest did really play a role in what I felt comfortable sharing and how animated I was. I hope that I always gave a base level of competency to my answers, but it would be kind of cool to watch interviews back and see how I answered in some cases vs. others.

 

[MaxPlancker]

This is completely just my intuitive guess. I think most schools already know whether they're going to accept you or not provided that you aren't someone crazy. I think that goes for the majority of spots and then the remaining spots are tossups for the rest of the interviewees. It just feels like this to me...idk why. Of course, I also think an exceptional (but rare) interview performance can all but lock you.

 

[takeurmeds02]

It would be interesting to know how many people do mock interviews before actual interviews. I feel like a lot of people assume they have great interview skills when that may not be the case.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I did mock interviews are my school and I would definitely advise to anyone going into the process; even those with gift of gab. This is obvious but it's one thing to be outgoing and personable but another to actually say the right things and vice versa.

 

[onceandforall]

This is completely just my intuitive guess. I think most schools already know whether they're going to accept you or not provided that you aren't someone crazy. I think that goes for the majority of spots and then the remaining spots are tossups for the rest of the interviewees. It just feels like this to me...idk why. Of course, I also think an exceptional (but rare) interview performance can all but lock you.

Do you think that they really would invite people to interview who they were pretty sure they weren't going to accept? That seems a bit unethical, but hey, nothing would surprise me at this point. I am not trying to argue at all as you may be right, I just find the whole thing fascinating.

 

[aalamruad]

Ugh, I feel like I'm one of the people this post refers to haha. 4 IIs --> 4 WLs. 3.79 GPA (3.7 BCPM), 508 MCAT (125s in B/B and C/P), with a well-written PS and "non-cookie cutter" ECs. Did 4 mock interviews (2 with science faculty, 1 with premed advisor, 1 with someone in the business world who frequently interviews), which yielded only positive feedback.

The only glaring red flags I see are my 125s and only 20ish shadowing hours. And obviously my interview skills still aren't perfection. So I don't know! This has certainly been an experience.

That very well may be a sign that those interviewers held back a bit. Even if I'm in the 99th percentile of interviewing skills, I expect a strong mock interviewer to give me some slight criticism and at least some minor things to work on. That's the whole point of mock interviews.

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

Ugh, I feel like I'm one of the people this post refers to haha. 4 IIs --> 4 WLs. 3.79 GPA (3.7 BCPM), 508 MCAT (125s in B/B and C/P), with a well-written PS and "non-cookie cutter" ECs. Did 4 mock interviews (2 with science faculty, 1 with premed advisor, 1 with someone in the business world who frequently interviews), which yielded only positive feedback.

The only glaring red flags I see are my 125s and only 20ish shadowing hours. And obviously my interview skills still aren't perfection. So I don't know! This has certainly been an experience.

That very well may be a sign that those interviewers held back a bit. Even if I'm in the 99th percentile of interviewing skills, I expect a strong mock interviewer to give me some slight criticism and at least some minor things to work on. That's the whole point of mock interviews.

Idk I bet it's way more likely low shadowing hours and 125s play more of a roll than bad interviews. 4 independent mocks should've identified if you were bad at Interviews.

Curious if your interviews were at places that have a high interview:acceptance ratio.

Hope one of the WLs works out! My friend sat on 6 WLs til June then suddenly netted a bunch of acceptances, so there's still tons action to be had.

 

[aalamruad]

Idk I bet it's way more likely low shadowing hours and 125s play more of a roll than bad interviews. 4 independent mocks should've identified if you were bad at Interviews.

Curious if your interviews were at places that have a high interview:acceptance ratio.

Hope one of the WLs works out! My friend sat on 6 WLs til June then suddenly netted a bunch of acceptances, so there's still tons action to be had.

Why would s/he be invited for an interview if stats and hours were simply insufficient? I may be wrong, but I have a hard time believing that stellar interview performance could result in a large number of waitlists. The common knowledge on SDN seems to be that once you get an II, your interview performance becomes by far the most relevant factor in the admission decision.

 

[mcatjelly]

That very well may be a sign that those interviewers held back a bit. Even if I'm in the 99th percentile of interviewing skills, I expect a strong mock interviewer to give me some slight criticism and at least some minor things to work on. That's the whole point of mock interviews.

For sure, and I really worded that deceivingly. There were definitely things I received constructive criticism on, just none were indicative of any glaring deficiencies. My main point was that while I'm likely (obviously) not a brilliant interviewer by any means, I don't yet think my interviews necessarily break me, either.

 

[mcatjelly]

Idk I bet it's way more likely low shadowing hours and 125s play more of a roll than bad interviews. 4 independent mocks should've identified if you were bad at Interviews.

Curious if your interviews were at places that have a high interview:acceptance ratio.

Hope one of the WLs works out! My friend sat on 6 WLs til June then suddenly netted a bunch of acceptances, so there's still tons action to be had.

Thanks! Definitely hoping for the best.

I've interviewed at EVMS, GW, VCU, and Drexel. I know Drexel and GW tend to interview many and then put many on a waitlist.

I sometimes wonder if my application focuses too much on mental health (vs medicine in general). Most of my ECs (clinical experience, leadership, volunteer, and research) are in the mental health field. My best MCAT sections were in the humanities (130 in CARS and 128 in P/S). None of my interviewers ever questioned my motivations or career path, but maybe I didn't end up convincing them.

Sorry, done rambling!

 

[Ad2b]

@mcatjelly - daaym.... not gonna lie. With all you do, to help all of us, I'm a wee bit stunned to see you're waitlisted. Hoping to see a change in your "Status" soon!!!

 

[DKMA]

I would add-in time of interview as well.

I'm a low gpa, good MCAT applicant. I'm 6/8 for acceptances at pre-December interviews. And then am 0/4 (all waitlists) for January and later interviews. So I can obviously interview, but I think if all your interviews are later, you may get all waitlists regardless of your conversational skills

 

[MaxPlancker]

Do you think that they really would invite people to interview who they were pretty sure they weren't going to accept? That seems a bit unethical, but hey, nothing would surprise me at this point. I am not trying to argue at all as you may be right, I just find the whole thing fascinating.

Idk just my feeling haha. I feel as if this notion drops off a bit more for the top schools--there, you have so many applicants who look great on paper that you really need an interview to see if their paper app really can be backed up (hence the low post-interview accept rate at top schools). I feel as if there are many factors involved when granting interviews, such as courtesy for people in-state and perhaps some courtesy to fellow Ivy students, URMs, etc.

 

[sharkbyte]

I entered the application process last year thinking that the interview was the most important part of the process and that it was the main factor that determined the decision reached by the school. Having completed my app cycle right now, I think it's quite apparent to me that every single school has its own way of doing things - qualities and attributes they're looking for; how many people and which people will be invited to interview; how important the interview is; what % of applicants will be accepted/waitlisted/rejected/deferred post-interview.

I interviewed at 5 schools - three that interview a ton of applicants (Albany, NYMC, and Albert Einstein) and two that are more selective with whom they invite to interview (Tufts and MCW). I get the feeling that at the former type of schools, the interview is important but not the main deciding factor - these schools probably have the resources to interview a lot of people, so they're less strict with whom they invite and then place more emphasis on other factors. This makes sense when you see that a lot of schools in this category have acceptance rates of 25% or 30% - surely there were at least a good amount of people in that 70% or 75% group of waitlisted/rejected who had good interviews.

At the latter type of schools, where only 5 or 7% of the entire applicant pool is being invited to interview and post-interview acceptance rates are in the range of 50-65%, it seems like the school is very interested in the applicant and only a bad or substandard interview would lead to a waitlist or rejection. These are the schools for which the idea of 'the spot is yours to lose" makes more sense.

I've seen the adcoms on SDN state numerous times that most applicants are terrible judges of how their interviews went and I do agree with that to a degree. But I've seen countless anecdotes of people getting accepted where they thought they had terrible interviews and getting waitlisted or even rejected from schools where they thought they absolutely aced the interview.

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

Why would s/he be invited for an interview if stats and hours were simply insufficient? I may be wrong, but I have a hard time believing that stellar interview performance could result in a large number of waitlists. The common knowledge on SDN seems to be that once you get an II, your interview performance becomes by far the most relevant factor in the admission decision.

The thing is the system is not set in stone. The stats and hours aren't insufficient, in fact they're definitlevely sufficient. They're just not "knock your socks off". A perfectly good interview performance could absolutely combine with some solid but not outstanding stats to produce a WL decision.

Like others said above, it's the effect of having so many excellent applicants in the field that produces this kind of result. Some IIs go to people who would make great med students but aren't the given schools first choice acceptance because there are other even more stellar candidates