Are interviews independent from stats?

[Omni]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Once someone gets to the interview, is it just the interview that will decide whether they will get accepted or not? I mean, they look at stats, ECs, GPA, and all that stuff to send out an interview invite, but during the interview step, is it JUST the interview that will decide the acceptance?

For example, if someone with a 4.0 GPA and a 39 MCAT and another person with a 3.6 GPA and a 30 MCAT reach the interview step, are they considered equals? Is it just the interview step that will decide who gets in between the two, or will they also review their stats again?

Thanks.

 

[FlowRate]

I think of everything as a factor of your application. MCAT, GPA, Interview, PS, LOR's, EC's. They all matter. If you're invited to interview, it means everything else was at least good enough to get an interview, but if everyone interviews as well as you, they'll have to look back on who had the better "stats."

(unsubstantiated but seems like the best theory from all the reading that I'm sure we've all done on the subject)

 

[LizzyM]

First of all, it is never between you and one other person.

Second, the application gets review and let's say everyone gets a rating (whatever scale you want) based on gpa, MCAT, LORs, research experience, altruism, exposure to medicine, etc.

So applicants have invisible numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 based on rating. The interview takes place and let's say it is closed file. The interviewer doesn't know your number and doesn't see your file. The interviewer is asked to rate you as an A, B, C, D, F.

Now we have a 1A, a 3A, a 1C, 2F etc. Obviously, the 1A should get an offer. Obviously, the 2F is going to be denied admission given that the interview was a complete disaster. What do we do with the 3As and the 1Cs. This is where the most discussion goes on. Obviously the 1C is better on paper but the 3A did better in the interview.

It isn't easy and it is sometimes subjective but there is a system. Do your best and hope for the best.

 

[MaryLennox]

i think it probably depends on the school. at mcw they told us that since we were all there for interview, we were already acceptable based on what was on paper, and at that point the decision was based mainly on the interview.

 

[csmittyB]

i think it probably depends on the school. at mcw they told us that since we were all there for interview, we were already acceptable based on what was on paper, and at that point the decision was based mainly on the interview.

Every school I interviewed at said the same thing. I think they say it to boost your confidence.

 

[LizzyM]

Schools shouldn't be inviting people for interviews if they are not "good enough" on paper to matriculate. That said, some people are better on paper than others and that tends to get taken into account, even as a halo effect in an open file interview.

 

[JJMrK]

Once someone gets to the interview, is it just the interview that will decide whether they will get accepted or not? I mean, they look at stats, ECs, GPA, and all that stuff to send out an interview invite, but during the interview step, is it JUST the interview that will decide the acceptance?

For example, if someone with a 4.0 GPA and a 39 MCAT and another person with a 3.6 GPA and a 30 MCAT reach the interview step, are they considered equals? Is it just the interview step that will decide who gets in between the two, or will they also review their stats again?

Thanks.

Totally depends on the school. At some places yes, at some no.

 

[bannie22]

they shud not be equals.... the person with the 4.0/39 has achieved much more than the 3.6/30 in terms of academics... to write all of that off so simply is unfair towards the 4.0/39.

why would fernando torres be equal to say andrea dossena even if they play for the same team? =/

 

[Zona Pellucida]

they shud not be equals.... the person with the 4.0/39 has achieved much more than the 3.6/30 in terms of academics... to write all of that off so simply is unfair towards the 4.0/39.

why would fernando torres be equal to say andrea dossena even if they play for the same team? =/

Because some of those 4.0/39's may be huge awkward weirdos that can't even hold a conversation which is a necessary skill in such a socially driven occupation.

 

[hurryupnwait]

they shud not be equals.... the person with the 4.0/39 has achieved much more than the 3.6/30 in terms of academics... to write all of that off so simply is unfair towards the 4.0/39.

why would fernando torres be equal to say andrea dossena even if they play for the same team? =/

Or Sir Alex Ferguson and Rafa Benitez, even if they manage in the same league 🙂

 

[LizzyM]

Because some of those 4.0/39's may be huge awkward weirdos that can't even hold a conversation which is a necessary skill in such a socially driven occupation.

OK so the awkward weirdo is a 1F and not going to get an interview. The question becomes, what do you do with a 1B and a 4B. The were equally good at the interview (B on an A to F scale) but one is better on paper than the other (1 and 4 on a 1-10 scale where those rated 4 or better are interviewed).

 

[Zona Pellucida]

OK so the awkward weirdo is a 1F and not going to get an interview. The question becomes, what do you do with a 1B and a 4B. The were equally good at the interview (B on an A to F scale) but one is better on paper than the other (1 and 4 on a 1-10 scale where those rated 4 or better are interviewed).

Well, at this point, if both interview equally as well, wouldn't you turn to the stats next? What else would be a fair way to divide the two?

 

[ziggydoc]

Rather than worrying about if your stats are good enough when you go into the interview, just think of it this way: You were invited because they can see themselves accepting you based on your stats, so the only thing left to do is for you to confirm their expectations. Like LizzyM said in another thread, the interview is usually a chance for you to change your position in the pack. For example, applicant A and B are both "good enough" to be accepted based on paper, but if there were only 100 spots, applicant B wouldn't get accepted just because there isn't enough spots. However, if applicant B came to the interview and blew the interviewer away, then he/she too moves up into that first 100 spots and gets an acceptance.

So, think of it this way, you are there for an interview for a reason, and that is to convince them that they made the right choice by giving you an interview, and that they should give you an acceptance. Worked very well for me (3 acceptances out of 3 interviews so far). Good luck.

 

[dingyibvs]

Because some of those 4.0/39's may be huge awkward weirdos that can't even hold a conversation which is a necessary skill in such a socially driven occupation.

I think you're missing the point. Obviously if the 4.0/39 guy is like that then he'd be rejected, or else they wouldn't even need him to interview. The question here is that is he an equal to the 3.6/30 guy, and for vast majority of the schools out there, it's a no. The 3.6/30 guy would have to significantly outperform the 4.0/39 guy in the interview to surpass him in admissions chances, as LizzyM has already pointed out.

 

[bannie22]

Because some of those 4.0/39's may be huge awkward weirdos that can't even hold a conversation which is a necessary skill in such a socially driven occupation.

zona u miss the point my friend.

just because they are not equal during the interview, does not mean that the interview carries no weight right?

 

[bannie22]

I think you're missing the point. Obviously if the 4.0/39 guy is like that then he'd be rejected, or else they wouldn't even need him to interview. The question here is that is he an equal to the 3.6/30 guy, and for vast majority of the schools out there, it's a no. The 3.6/30 guy would have to significantly outperform the 4.0/39 guy in the interview to surpass him in admissions chances, as LizzyM has already pointed out.

thank you!
😎

i have nothing against zona because hes a nice guy, but many others on sdn love to jump to a random conclusion.

 

[bannie22]

Or Sir Alex Ferguson and Rafa Benitez, even if they manage in the same league 🙂

sir alex does have more titles and is the more successful manager. but he has been there a longer time with much more money.

but i respect him that he has the crappiest team in the big 6, and he is still 2nd or 1st? (for now)

but sir alex's tactics can only do well in premier league, they suck in europe. 2 champions league in 20 years? pretty bad.

ur centermidfield makes me laugh. fletcher and who carrick? LOL
but the fact that his crap team is doing alright, gotta give him credit

 

[Shinobiz11]

First of all, it is never between you and one other person.

Second, the application gets review and let's say everyone gets a rating (whatever scale you want) based on gpa, MCAT, LORs, research experience, altruism, exposure to medicine, etc.

So applicants have invisible numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 based on rating. The interview takes place and let's say it is closed file. The interviewer doesn't know your number and doesn't see your file. The interviewer is asked to rate you as an A, B, C, D, F.

Now we have a 1A, a 3A, a 1C, 2F etc. Obviously, the 1A should get an offer. Obviously, the 2F is going to be denied admission given that the interview was a complete disaster. What do we do with the 3As and the 1Cs. This is where the most discussion goes on. Obviously the 1C is better on paper but the 3A did better in the interview.

It isn't easy and it is sometimes subjective but there is a system. Do your best and hope for the best.

+1👍

 

[Zona Pellucida]

thank you!
😎

i have nothing against zona because hes a nice guy, but many others on sdn love to jump to a random conclusion.

It's fine. I understood what you were saying out of context of the entire thread. My fault

 

[hurryupnwait]

.

 

[LizzyM]

Haha, ouch. I was kidding, and I'm not a ManU fan at all. I am a Milan fan though, and that one CL final against Liverpool is still a painful memory...

But sticking with the topic of the thread - I'd say a number ***** like Wash U will probably pick a 1C over a 2A++, but (judging from people's experience/general trend) which schools prefer the latter applicant? Which schools "weed out" gunners through the interviews?

I'd like to but I get push-back from committee members who are gunner-lovers.

 

[JJMrK]

I think you're missing the point. Obviously if the 4.0/39 guy is like that then he'd be rejected, or else they wouldn't even need him to interview. The question here is that is he an equal to the 3.6/30 guy, and for vast majority of the schools out there, it's a no. The 3.6/30 guy would have to significantly outperform the 4.0/39 guy in the interview to surpass him in admissions chances, as LizzyM has already pointed out.

Again, totally dependent on the school.

 

[slowbutsteady]

First of all, it is never between you and one other person.

Second, the application gets review and let's say everyone gets a rating (whatever scale you want) based on gpa, MCAT, LORs, research experience, altruism, exposure to medicine, etc.

So applicants have invisible numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 based on rating. The interview takes place and let's say it is closed file. The interviewer doesn't know your number and doesn't see your file. The interviewer is asked to rate you as an A, B, C, D, F.

Now we have a 1A, a 3A, a 1C, 2F etc. Obviously, the 1A should get an offer. Obviously, the 2F is going to be denied admission given that the interview was a complete disaster. What do we do with the 3As and the 1Cs. This is where the most discussion goes on. Obviously the 1C is better on paper but the 3A did better in the interview.

It isn't easy and it is sometimes subjective but there is a system. Do your best and hope for the best.

I have been playing on these boards since 2007 and I have never seen a clearer, and more revealing, description of the process.

And since it is from LizzyM, rather than some smart-ass premed, it has A+ credibility.

Future applicants, take heed. Current applicants, too late for you.

 

[slowbutsteady]

they shud not be equals.... the person with the 4.0/39 has achieved much more than the 3.6/30 in terms of academics... to write all of that off so simply is unfair towards the 4.0/39.

why would fernando torres be equal to say andrea dossena even if they play for the same team? =/

This is ridiculous. No one believes that a 4.0/39 is, based on those numbers, going to be a better doctor, or even a more successful medical student, than a 3.6/30.

[Amendment: the 4.0/39 people think that.]

This process isn't a contest in which the person with the best numbers "wins" the prize because that is "fairer."

 

[anfleisch]

This is definitely different from school to school. I did not realize how different the attributes that each school is looking for. I think it is actually amazing how different the model applicant is for some schools when they are all looking to produce a similar product (not always but for the most part). I personally think this contributes to the randomness of this process.

I also think a wierdo could easily practice and pull out a 30 minute interview, especially if they have a 4.0 which means they did well in required public speaking and/or not just on exams. If I was an adcom, I would secretly video record the "waiting area" where all the interviewing students wait around for their appointments. You can really see there who is socially awkward and nervous and who can easily handle large social situations and lead a group.

 

[Omni]

This is definitely different from school to school. I did not realize how different the attributes that each school is looking for. I think it is actually amazing how different the model applicant is for some schools when they are all looking to produce a similar product (not always but for the most part). I personally think this contributes to the randomness of this process.

I also think a wierdo could easily practice and pull out a 30 minute interview, especially if they have a 4.0 which means they did well in required public speaking and/or not just on exams. If I was an adcom, I would secretly video record the "waiting area" where all the interviewing students wait around for their appointments. You can really see there who is socially awkward and nervous and who can easily handle large social situations and lead a group.

Amen to that! When I went to a med school to speak to an admissions director, they made me wait in the waiting room where all the medical students were waiting for their interview as well. I was analyzing people on how they sat there. The two people who caught my attention were this Asian girl who constantly took her phone out to check the time and to text someone, and this other guy who didn't talk at all--even after I threw up a conversation to talk about. All the laid-back kids actually took part in the conversation except for the mentioned people; one was nervous as hell, and the other probably didn't have a life outside of studying and the library.

 

[FlowRate]

At the conference I went to a month or two ago, the most common stories from adcomms were the stories of the person who was a total douche in the waiting room, with the student interviewer, or even just in general. It also happened to be the "4.0/45" (direct quote) most of the time.

 

[harvman11]

This is ridiculous. No one believes that a 4.0/39 is, based on those numbers, going to be a better doctor, or even a more successful medical student, than a 3.6/30.

[Amendment: the 4.0/39 people think that.]

This process isn't a contest in which the person with the best numbers "wins" the prize because that is "fairer."

Eh... I would sort of disagree (full disclosure, I'm closer to the 4.0/39 than the 3.6/30, so I guess I would 🙄)

There are plenty of people in both groups who will make great doctors, but assuming everything else (ECs, PS, LOR, social skills, etc.) is equal, I would say the 4.0/39 has probably put in more effort into their school work. Medical school is going to be a lot of work, and importantly the work (for the first two years) is somewhat similar to that they've done in undergrad. The 4.0/39 is probably better prepared for medical school... not neccessarily being a doctor, but they do have to go through medical school.

Personally I think motivations (as shown in PS and ECs) and the LOR are probably the most important parts, but I do think that grades/MCAT scores matter, otherwise why would they make us take them?

Just my $0.02