Better to be a paper>reality case or reality>paper case?

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

President of community service club after being in it for 4 years and racking up 1000 hours sounds amazing on paper. Except until you talk to the person in the interview and see no passion or depth to the impact it had on the person.

Then you have the person who was just a general member, doing it for maybe 4 months, and only have 100 hours. But when you talk to the person about it, they seem so inspire by the impact it had on them that it really shows in their expressions.

Despite all this, is it really better to just be the first person? I mean.... isn't it all that matters that you did your hours and had a leadership position?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[md-2020]

Chances are, both of these people wouldn't be admitted. There's piles and piles of applicants who are phenomenal both on paper and at the interview.

 

[Goro]

You have a true gift for asking fool's errand questions.

Your question is impossible to answer because rejection or acceptance will depend upon the entire interview, and the app.

If someone had no passion when they discussed interacting with patients, that would be a red flag.

President of community service club after being in it for 4 years and racking up 1000 hours sounds amazing on paper. Except until you talk to the person in the interview and see no passion or depth to the impact it had on the person.

Then you have the person who was just a general member, doing it for maybe 4 months, and only have 100 hours. But when you talk to the person about it, they seem so inspire by the impact it had on them that it really shows in their expressions.

Despite all this, is it really better to just be the first person? I mean.... isn't it all that matters that you did your hours and had a leadership position?

 

[strictlyanon]

as a real life "paper>reality" case, all I have to say is it can be a tremendous waste of $$ because you get tons of interviews and a low acceptance rate to them;

however, I would rather be paper>reality than the other way around, because what is the use of being great in reality if you aren't given the opportunity to showcase that in the form of an interview?

 

[Holmwood]

If they both got interviews, they must have something going for them on paper that's compelling. Work/life experience, stats, pulls, etc. . .


If either guys mess up on the interview, that's sort of on them. Emotionless robots with excellent apps are going to get an interview, but they're not going to get accepted. Unless they're emotionless robots that can fake it for a good couple hours.

 

[Cookiess]

Reality > Paper.

Being great on paper gets you interviews, but might not be good enough to get you accepted. The being great in reality case may hinder you from getting interviews, but you would be more likely to get acceptances if you end up getting any interviews. Assuming both types have at least a couple of interviews (paper would probably have more interview invites), being great in reality results in more acceptances at the end of the day.

 

[DokterMom]

If you're better on paper, the interviewer is likely to be at least somewhat disappointed in the real-life you - even if you're "fine".
If you're better in person, the risk is that you never get to the interview stage.

Best: Be good enough on paper to get the interview, and even better in person.