Assessing interview performance - how many people actually bomb their interviews?

[Bloobury]

There are two ideas I'm trying to reconcile - that "if you've gotten this far [the interview] you're good enough to be here", and the fact that only about 30-40% of interviewees will get an acceptance (at least at the schools where I've interviewed).

So I'm really curious - what is the distribution of interviewee performance from "really bad" to "truly exceptional"? I imagine most fall in a nebulous heap in the middle and are not a distinct "yea" or "nay". How on earth does an ADCOM get enough information out of the interview process to tease out that top 30%?

Or is it really the case that 50% of otherwise highly qualified people suck at interviewing?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Goro]

There are two ideas I'm trying to reconcile - that "if you've gotten this far [the interview] you're good enough to be here", and the fact that only about 30-40% of interviewees will get an acceptance (at least at the schools where I've interviewed).

So I'm really curious - what is the distribution of interviewee performance from "really bad" to "truly exceptional"? I imagine most fall in a nebulous heap in the middle and are not a distinct "yea" or "nay". How on earth does an ADCOM get enough information out of the interview process to tease out that top 30%?

Or is it really the case that 50% of otherwise highly qualified people suck at interviewing?

You'd be surprised.

I'd say the that some 3% are so bad they get outright rejects, and the same number get waitlisted, permanently.

For the rest, it's that competition is fierce. This is an Olympic caliber event, so it's not those people are bad at interviewing, it's that others are better....and it's not just the interview, but the entire package.

 

[KnightDoc]

There are two ideas I'm trying to reconcile - that "if you've gotten this far [the interview] you're good enough to be here", and the fact that only about 30-40% of interviewees will get an acceptance (at least at the schools where I've interviewed).

So I'm really curious - what is the distribution of interviewee performance from "really bad" to "truly exceptional"? I imagine most fall in a nebulous heap in the middle and are not a distinct "yea" or "nay". How on earth does an ADCOM get enough information out of the interview process to tease out that top 30%?

Or is it really the case that 50% of otherwise highly qualified people suck at interviewing?

I'm not an adcom, but I am pretty sure that after studying this for two years I have some reasonable inkling of what's going on. IMHO, you are just not looking at it correctly. Getting an II doesn't mean anything more than you are good enough to make it to the next stage of the process. It doesn't necessarily mean you're good enough to be admitted.

The 15-75% post-II admit rate (it varies by school and the spread really is that large) is by design, not accident. Schools invite a lot of people in because they have capacity to do so, and want to have a lot of choices. My favorite explanation for how interview performance factors into a final decision is @LizzyM's staircase analogy.

Under that explanation, it's not that everyone with an II is "good enough to be here" and everyone starts with a clean slate, with the top 30% of interviewees receiving As. Instead, people are ranked going into the interview, and the interview is just one more metric used to make decisions. Therefore, you can easily be at the bottom of the staircase going into the interview, have a great interview, and still not be accepted.

Ultimately, it has nothing to do with a ton of people sucking at interviewing. Sure, some do, but the bigger issue is that all schools choose to interview far more people than they can admit, so a lot of people are going to be disappointed. It's pointless to look for a deeper explanation than that, because one doesn't exist.

Yes, someone with 10 IIs and no As is either really unlucky or just sucks at interviewing, but that's very rare, and doesn't account for the fact that the stats suggest that you should expect 1 A for every 3 or so IIs. It's just the way the schools have set the process up, and has nothing to do with adcoms teasing out the top 30% based primarily on interview performance.

 

[Banco]

IMO most people are bad at assessing their own performance (the good and the bad).

 

[Bloobury]

Ahhhhh I'm an idiot. I forgot about the staircase. That makes a lot of sense. I just kept hearing a lot of super encouraging stuff from the admissions people at my interviews and felt like "...*looks around* ...welp, there's a lot of us who won't be getting in here so I don't know why ya'll are being so nice about it and telling us "we know you have options of where you'll attend medical school" and other baseless platitudes".

 

[KnightDoc]

Ahhhhh I'm an idiot. I forgot about the staircase. That makes a lot of sense. I just kept hearing a lot of super encouraging stuff from the admissions people at my interviews and felt like "...*looks around* ...welp, there's a lot of us who won't be getting in here so I don't know why ya'll are being so nice about it and telling us "we know you have options of where you'll attend medical school" and other baseless platitudes".

And, try to remember, in the second week in January, it is FAR from over. You very well might still receive an A, and, I honestly think there will be more WL movement than usual this year due to virtual interviewing causing a lot more top applicants to attend more IIs than usual. If I'm right, this will result in them receiving more As than usual, which will create more WL movement when they turn them down between now and April.

By the way, you are doing GREAT considering how few apps you submitted!! I assume there is a good reason you didn't apply to more schools? The bad news is that this limits your opportunities now. The good news is that this means you will have a lot of great schools at which you will not be a reapplicant if things don't work out this cycle and you are willing and able to put yourself through another cycle in the future!

 

[Bloobury]

By the way, you are doing GREAT considering how few apps you submitted!! I assume there is a good reason you didn't apply to more schools? The bad news is that this limits your opportunities now. The good news is that this means you will have a lot of great schools at which you will not be a reapplicant if things don't work out this cycle and you are willing and able to put yourself through another cycle in the future!

Thanks! I am old and have a pretty mediocre GPA but a decent MCAT and some pretty great extracurriculars so I figured it was worth throwing my hat in the ring this cycle. I chose schools I felt I had a decent shot at but also that I would actually like to go to (based on location, curriculum, vibe, etc) while concurrently taking an extra class or two to boost my GPA in case I don't get in this cycle. I'm doing meaningful work that pays pretty well and have no debt, so I'm not feeling that lost and panicky feeling that I imagine most undergrads/recent grads experience at the thought of "losing a year" if they have to reapply. Worst case scenario, I get to save/invest more and do some more travels (COVID-willing) while reapplying! One of my interviews was at my top choice school, so I'm hopeful....

 

[simuu]

Well, I'd like to think that most people who've managed to interview with med schools tend to have decent interviewing skills right off the bat. Let's face it, a lot of pre-meds probably have interviewed plenty of times: be it for clinical experience, volunteering, internships/research positions, jobs related to healthcare, etcetera. It also helps that the majority of applicants have an advanced vocabulary and rigorous workload compared to other non-med students which inadvertently helps them to interview better.

However...

Having one's head stuck in books all day doesn't lend to the formation of excellent social skills. Forming a connection to build ease with your interviewer will do wonders. Some people might need to improve social cues or the vibe they transmit.

Personally I think a 40% or so acceptance rate after interviews is good.

 

[Moko]

There are two ideas I'm trying to reconcile - that "if you've gotten this far [the interview] you're good enough to be here", and the fact that only about 30-40% of interviewees will get an acceptance (at least at the schools where I've interviewed).

So I'm really curious - what is the distribution of interviewee performance from "really bad" to "truly exceptional"? I imagine most fall in a nebulous heap in the middle and are not a distinct "yea" or "nay". How on earth does an ADCOM get enough information out of the interview process to tease out that top 30%?

Or is it really the case that 50% of otherwise highly qualified people suck at interviewing?

From my observations, the overwhelming majority (>85%) of interviewees give "good" or "great" interviews. So having a "bad" or "average" interview really sticks out for the wrong reasons and often sends otherwise fine candidates to the rejection pile. It is relatively uncommon (<2%) to see a "catastrophic" performance. Barring these "bad" interviews though, it can be very difficult to differentiate candidates based on interview performance alone, so much so that it often feels like an applicant's outcome is largely predetermined by their primary and secondary application à la LizzyM's ladder/staircase analogy. Those who give "extraordinary" interviews usually only confirm what we already know about the applicant from their application and letter writers. In a sense, the interview serves as the last "negative screen" against oddballs and strange (and potentially toxic) personalities.

Given how accomplished each cohort of interviewees is, we routinely need to reject perfectly fine candidates who gave good interviews. Those who are initially waitlisted may be understandably disappointed with their outcome, but what they may not realize is that they made it through a culling that at times feels like the admission's rendition of the Red Wedding.

 

[Bloobury]

From my observations, the overwhelming majority (>85%) of interviewees give "good" or "great" interviews. So having a "bad" or "average" interview really sticks out for the wrong reasons and often sends otherwise fine candidates to the rejection pile. It is relatively uncommon (<2%) to see a "catastrophic" performance. Barring these "bad" interviews though, it can be very difficult to differentiate candidates based on interview performance alone, so much so that it often feels like an applicant's outcome is largely predetermined by their primary and secondary application à la LizzyM's ladder/staircase analogy. Those who give "extraordinary" interviews usually only confirm what we already know about the applicant from their application and letter writers. In a sense, the interview serves as the last "negative screen" against oddballs and strange (and potentially toxic) personalities.

This is really helpful framing - thank you!

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Agree with @Moko and @Goro . The just unremarkable interviews really stand out. Poor ones are rare, probably 1 in 20. What's a good interview? Someone who projects warmth, connects with others,( some schools have group interviews), and can interact spontaneously. I will interrupt you if I get a canned response. I want to know how you think, and if you can logically defend your position when I challenge it by taking the other point of view. There are not often right or wrong answers. We are basically trying to figure out if we would like you to be our doctor someday. I also agree that students are poor judges of their interview performance.