At the interview stage...

[premed2002]

Once invited for an interview, do grades become less of a determining factor? I guess what I'm asking is whether the final decision is based primarily on the interview, since other qualifications have already been assessed by that point. Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[E'01]

I wish it was like that. I've had interviewers tell me oh well you made it this far which is good, but your GPA will still be a factor (I got in later though). I thought if you made the interview stage, your numbers were no longer debatable. Correct me if I'm wrong anyone.

 

[A. Caveman]

you are invited to interview with a 29 mcat and 3.6 gpa at a school whose average mcat and gpa are 33 and 3.7. another guy is at the interview with a 35 and 3.9. are both of you equal now that you've reached this stage? heck no. they don't throw everything away and just wait for your interview information to make a decision. In my opinion, the interview info is added to the rest and a decision is made. the guy with stats under the schools average better make a HELL of an impression at the interview to be seen equally with the guy whose stats are "too good for that school." that guy can go in with a crack pipe hanging from his lip and still beat the lower stat guy.

**of course, some super candidates DO get rejected from schools (and i know they don't screw up THAT royally). but all that tells me is that the interview is one of the MOST important parts of your application. still, i think the above applies.

 

[Brian20]

unfortunately the adcoms create that false sense of security that grades no longer count after interview, but i disagree. i think they still count, and being a person with average everything, made my life hell the past 2 years.

i just tried to play up my experiences and my good intentions. i really want to do third world service so i talked about that and how it was reflected in my college classes (african studies minor).

really know your application and how you can use it and your experiences to portray the right message...whatever it might be.

i do think they still look at your grades, but grades are not AS important at this stage. its almost like they look at grades in the first place and then after the interview, they look at personality and then grades....but dont be fooled, grades are still a big part.

but hey, i had a 28 mcat, 3.5 gpa, clinical experience and current lab work. i write fairly well and talk fairly well. i annoyed admissions people once a week when i was wait listed last year. THEY KNEW MY NAME and that was huge. i had letter of rec from doctors and one phone call from a doctor to the school. i did everything i could to get my name in their heads. do it, it helps....especially if you get waitlisted.

take care guys and good luck.

i have a feelin that this summer is gonna see a lot of movement and many people are gonna get late offers from schools. especially the new york meds and albanys of the world. wait listed people will have a really good chance this year.

later

 

[none]

Numbers count just as much as when you first started the process!

 

[Triangulation]

It seems like not only could grades be weighed in after you're interview, but during. If you've got weird stuff on your transcript like I do, they're gonna be asking you about it that day. I'm sure they want to know if the grades are an accurate reflection of you or not. This doesn't have to be negative, I think you could certainly assail the fictitious crack-smoker interviewee if you gave the impression that you'd actually be able to handle the rigors of med school better than him.

 

[NebraskaAggieMD2B]

The only thing an interview tells you is that you have met that school's minimum requirements to get into med school. however they still will come into play in the admissions process.

There is one exception. Some state schools interview ALL residents from that state regardless of scores. So even though their minimum requirements might be higher than what you have, you may still get an interview. I'm living proof of that.

 

[alice]

at some schools, your grades etc. disappear and your interview is the only thing evaluated. but those schools are few and far between and they will tell you! i know that at northwestern, eg, they interview blind and give you a numerical value based on your interviews. your admission decision is based on that number + the numerical assessment of your secondary. i imagine that most schools don't lose track of numbers after the interview stage. BUT after you've made it to that process, a great interview definitely could make up for a mediocre file - that's why they gave you an interview in the first place!

 

[megkudos]

Originally posted by Brian20:
•

but hey, i had a 28 mcat, 3.5 gpa, clinical experience and current lab work. i write fairly well and talk fairly well. i annoyed admissions people once a week when i was wait listed last year. THEY KNEW MY NAME and that was huge. i had letter of rec from doctors and one phone call from a doctor to the school. i did everything i could to get my name in their heads. do it, it helps....especially if you get waitlisted.

take care guys and good luck.

i have a feelin that this summer is gonna see a lot of movement and many people are gonna get late offers from schools. especially the new york meds and albanys of the world. wait listed people will have a really good chance this year.

later•••

Where do you go to school? I am guessing you are a first year somewhere right?

 

[amonkeybutt]

I don't know the exact details of the other schools' process but at Oregon Health & Science University the grades/MCAT counts for 25% of the final "score" you receive from the adcom, the other 75% come from the blind interviews. Their emphasis on the interview shows that they want to look beyond the numbers but not completely forget them

 

[gooseHC]

Does anyone know which schools emphasize the interviews more than others? I read the MSAR trying to figure this out but can't really tell. As someone with good but not outstandingly good stats, I am hoping that the interview can give me a boost

 

[Food]

Does anyone know which schools emphasize the interviews more than others? I read the MSAR trying to figure this out but can't really tell. As someone with good but not outstandingly good stats, I am hoping that the interview can give me a boost

Super-old thread here, but I was wondering this exact same thing.

 

[brooklynblunder]

my friend interviewed at hopkins last year with a 4.0/32. he got rejected and called to find out that his MCAT score was too low for them. basically, they are gonna scrutinize anything that is lacking. now he could have had a bad interview and what not but idk. if two people were the exact same w/ different numbers, most likely they will go with the kid with the higher numbers


not that many people are awkward at interviews, but anyway, you never can predict these things. i guess just be comfortable, practice, know your field, and hopefully you have enjoyed your activities enough to articulate them

 

[Food]

my friend interviewed at hopkins last year with a 4.0/32. he got rejected and called to find out that his MCAT score was too low for them. basically, they are gonna scrutinize anything that is lacking. now he could have had a bad interview and what not but idk. if two people were the exact same w/ different numbers, most likely they will go with the kid with the higher numbers


not that many people are awkward at interviews, but anyway, you never can predict these things. i guess just be comfortable, practice, know your field, and hopefully you have enjoyed your activities enough to articulate them

Why did they even interview him if his MCAT was too low?

 

[brooklynblunder]

yea for real

but i guess theres discrepancies between the files being reviewed for interview and committee decisions to admit?

 

[bamtuba]

I'll chime in here just because I fit the model of what brooklyn is saying.

I just got an interview at Hopkins and I have a 31.

Does it matter?

The answer is a firm, 100% maybe.

Now there are many out there that would say "hey, you have no shot at getting an invite there, why are you applying?"

And others that would disagree.

My attitude has been one of "you just never know."

I'll give two examples of the types of adcom that I personally know:

Type 1: MD, went to Baylor for medical school, UCLA for residency, and did fellowship at Hopkins. Allowed me to scrub in on cases in the OR and mentored me for 1 year. He was also voted by the medical students at a "top 20" medical school as something along the lines of "teacher of the year."

His attitude toward my application: "Man, go for it. You've got so many pieces of the puzzle going for you that you just have to."

And his advice on Hopkins: "They aren't what you might expect. There are people there just like you."

Type 2: PhD, went to Duke, does research for a top 20 and currently sits on a committee of the sort that reviews our applications for that school. I don't know him as well, but he knows my situation and numbers.

His attitude toward my application (after hearing about how many interviews I have been offered): "Oh yeah, Duke and Vanderbilt aren't a surprise. They really do look for a higher caliber of candidate. You might have a shot at school X...maybe."

This my friends is where the "crap shoot" part of the process really takes place. Which of the above reads your application and which of the above does your interview?

Many people tend to think that those just like them are those deserving of admission to their school.

Will I get into Mayo or Hopkins or any other type of school that people might consider a "long-shot?" I don't know. But like I've said this whole time, you can't say no for them!

Maybe you get the MD and maybe you get the PhD mentioned above, but you don't have control over that so you just can't know until you either get that big fat "come to our school" envelope/phone call or the smaller "go away, we thought better of it" letter.

 

[Food]

I'll chime in here just because I fit the model of what brooklyn is saying.

I just got an interview at Hopkins and I have a 31.

Does it matter?

The answer is a firm, 100% maybe.

Now there are many out there that would say "hey, you have no shot at getting an invite there, why are you applying?"

And others that would disagree.

My attitude has been one of "you just never know."

I'll give two examples of the types of adcom that I personally know:

Type 1: MD, went to Baylor for medical school, UCLA for residency, and did fellowship at Hopkins. Allowed me to scrub in on cases in the OR and mentored me for 1 year. He was also voted by the medical students at a "top 20" medical school as something along the lines of "teacher of the year."

His attitude toward my application: "Man, go for it. You've got so many pieces of the puzzle going for you that you just have to."

And his advice on Hopkins: "They aren't what you might expect. There are people there just like you."

Type 2: PhD, went to Duke, does research for a top 20 and currently sits on a committee of the sort that reviews our applications for that school. I don't know him as well, but he knows my situation and numbers.

His attitude toward my application (after hearing about how many interviews I have been offered): "Oh yeah, Duke and Vanderbilt aren't a surprise. They really do look for a higher caliber of candidate. You might have a shot at school X...maybe."

This my friends is where the "crap shoot" part of the process really takes place. Which of the above reads your application and which of the above does your interview?

Many people tend to think that those just like them are those deserving of admission to their school.

Will I get into Mayo or Hopkins or any other type of school that people might consider a "long-shot?" I don't know. But like I've said this whole time, you can't say no for them!

I'd trade my MCAT score for your activities/awards list.

 

[brooklynblunder]

I'll chime in here just because I fit the model of what brooklyn is saying.

I just got an interview at Hopkins and I have a 31.

Does it matter?

The answer is a firm, 100% maybe.

Now there are many out there that would say "hey, you have no shot at getting an invite there, why are you applying?"

And others that would disagree.

My attitude has been one of "you just never know."

I'll give two examples of the types of adcom that I personally know:

Type 1: MD, went to Baylor for medical school, UCLA for residency, and did fellowship at Hopkins. Allowed me to scrub in on cases in the OR and mentored me for 1 year. He was also voted by the medical students at a "top 20" medical school as something along the lines of "teacher of the year."

His attitude toward my application: "Man, go for it. You've got so many pieces of the puzzle going for you that you just have to."

And his advice on Hopkins: "They aren't what you might expect. There are people there just like you."

Type 2: PhD, went to Duke, does research for a top 20 and currently sits on a committee of the sort that reviews our applications for that school. I don't know him as well, but he knows my situation and numbers.

His attitude toward my application (after hearing about how many interviews I have been offered): "Oh yeah, Duke and Vanderbilt aren't a surprise. They really do look for a higher caliber of candidate. You might have a shot at school X...maybe."

This my friends is where the "crap shoot" part of the process really takes place. Which of the above reads your application and which of the above does your interview?

Many people tend to think that those just like them are those deserving of admission to their school.

Will I get into Mayo or Hopkins or any other type of school that people might consider a "long-shot?" I don't know. But like I've said this whole time, you can't say no for them!

Maybe you get the MD and maybe you get the PhD mentioned above, but you don't have control over that so you just can't know until you either get that big fat "come to our school" envelope/phone call or the smaller "go away, we thought better of it" letter.

wow what a douchebag thing to say. i agree, theres no reason to not try. you never know what happens. there are so many applicants that schools sometimes have to use a negative approach to things but, as applicants, we never know and we just have to enjoy the conversations at our interviews - and if we worked hard and enjoyed our experiences so far, then things should hopefully work out

 

[bamtuba]

Hey, we all got what we got and do what we can.

I guess the big thing is just to not let other people get you down. You really do have to follow your dreams (as cheesy as that sounds). I am lucky in that I had to deal with the whole "*crab in the bucket syndrome" while in high school until I got out and went to college.

*crabs that have been caught will pull any other crabs escaping from a trap back down so no one gets away.

 

[njbmd]

Once invited for an interview, do grades become less of a determining factor? I guess what I'm asking is whether the final decision is based primarily on the interview, since other qualifications have already been assessed by that point. Thanks!

Think of the interview as the opportunity for you to actually sell yourself to the admissions committee via your interviewer. Your application is there on paper but the impression that you make during the interview can either contribute or diminish what's on paper. Final decisions are based on the whole package.

 

[Food]

Think of the interview as the opportunity for you to actually sell yourself to the admissions committee via your interviewer. Your application is there on paper but the impression that you make during the interview can either contribute or diminish what's on paper. Final decisions are based on the whole package.

Well...yeah. That doesn't really answer the question.

 

[turkeyjerky]

Well...yeah. That doesn't really answer the question.

Here's how it works (at least at my school and a few others that I know of, although I'd bet that most schools uses a variation of this process): once the complete application is submitted, one or two members of the adcom go over it and vote yay or nay on giving an interview. They're not voting on whether to give admission, just whether the application warrants an interview. The interviewer then writes a brief report on the applicant. The application is then assigned to one or two members of the adcom, who are assigned to evaluate it in depth and recommend whether or not to admit the applicant. The entire adcom then votes on whether to admit, waitlist or reject the applicant.

So, the decisions to interview vs. admit the applicant are actually two separate decisions, both of which use the entire (grades, mcat, and activities) application to make a decision. Grades don't magically become unimportant once you've been granted an interview, but it does mean that your academic record was deemed acceptable for admission.