Common Interview Selection Myths- Validity?

[lall]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey all, I'm posing a couple of questions that I'm sure have been tossed around in school-specific threads before.

However, lets make a separate stand-alone thread for this.

Before you read on, note that these are my opinions about some common myths, if I'm wrong, please inform us all!

1. Schools interview specifically for the waitlist
Doesn't make sense to me. Which schools could end up with full classes, but need enough waitlist spots to guarantee full-matriculation? If they're worried they're offering acceptances to that many students who won't matriculate, shouldn't they be offering the acceptances to the "lower stat" candidates who they don't think will have as many other acceptances to pick from?

Also, I really hope schools aren't interviewing students knowing full well most of them will never be able to matriculate. My hope is that schools have at least some open seats during each interview date. Too optimistic?

2. If you've been passed over, don't fret, you may get a later interview because your stats aren't as good as the initial wave of interview invite candidates.
No senses made-- maybe there's no rhyme or reason to how an application makes its way to an administrators desk, and maybe there are internal "hold" piles at every school, but if this was true just in general the SDN mantra of "apply early" is essentially moot.

3. There is no internal numbers screen.

I hope this is true, but I honestly think there are some schools (GW, Georgetown, Tulane) which receive soooo many applications that they have to employ an internal numbers screen to even get knee deep in the pile.

Hmm...Can't think of any others. Hoping we can use this thread to put an end to some of the myths out there and/or validate any of them.

 

[Microglia]

A few notes just of my experience and that of my peers with admissions:

1. I have heard of schools having accepted the maximum number of applicants but still having interview dates left. This means that essentially, the interview is for the waitlist. This tends to be less common, and usually pretty late in the cycle (Februaryish).

2. This is a little convoluted to make as a rule.

A little about admissions: from what I can tell, when applicants apply, the ones that look best on paper, including numbers, EC's, essay quality, etc. are offered the first interviews. Then during the next round, the next best ones from the first pool, along with the best ones that have applied after the first review date, are offered interviews.

Now, bear in mind: if you haven't applied by the first interview, you can't get invited to the first one anyway. Applying early always matters so your application has the possibility of being interviewed at every round of interviews. Given that committees are human (some days could be going better for the reviewers than others, sometimes they'll favor something you have over someone else) it's ALWAYS important to try to maximize your chances by having your application in as early as possible. Also, different schools value different things, so at one school you could be one of their best applicants, while at another you could just be average. Anyway, yes during the very first wave of interviews the outliers on the superstar side tend to get selected, but what really matters is that if you apply early, you have the most time for review, and the greatest number of interview sessions that you will be eligible for.

Finally, I know many superstar applicants who apply late and do worse because of it. The above average-average applicant who was prompt with their application can take the spot they would have gotten.

3. I can't speak to this, as I have never heard a school admit to having an internal numbers screen. There might be some screen, but I have no evidence for or against it.

 

[tantacles]

Hey all, I'm posing a couple of questions that I'm sure have been tossed around in school-specific threads before.

However, lets make a separate stand-alone thread for this.

Before you read on, note that these are my opinions about some common myths, if I'm wrong, please inform us all!

1. Schools interview specifically for the waitlist
Doesn't make sense to me. Which schools could end up with full classes, but need enough waitlist spots to guarantee full-matriculation? If they're worried they're offering acceptances to that many students who won't matriculate, shouldn't they be offering the acceptances to the "lower stat" candidates who they don't think will have as many other acceptances to pick from?

Some schools might, but my hunch is that most schools don't do this. They purposely save spots for interviewees later in the cycle. My current medical school definitely saved spots. I was accepted two weeks post-interview in early May.

2. If you've been passed over, don't fret, you may get a later interview because your stats aren't as good as the initial wave of interview invite candidates.

This is likely true. Some schools do things in chronological order, and some pluck the applicants they want out of the pile and only review other applicants later.

3. There is no internal numbers screen.

Most schools likely have some sort of screening process.