Do all interviewees have an equal chance?

[barto123]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Once you make post secondary cut and get called in for an interview does that put you on a level playing field with everyone else being interviewed, or do they still take into account your GPA, MCAT, ECs, and LORs?

I ask because I've been told by an interviewer at Illinois that he doesn't have access to anyones files, he is just told to assume that everyone invited for an interview is equal.

Who is more likely to gain acceptance? Someone with great stats and a mediocre interview or someone with mediocre stats and an excellent interview? Assuming that everyone interviewing is equal, it would mean the person with the excellent interview will more likely get accepted. Or do they just score the interview and add it to your other stats? I'm guessing it depends on the school.

 

[MassTransport]

You're right, it depends on the school. Both of your scenarios aren't good.

 

[littlealex]

Interviews contribute to your overall file. They don't supercede it. In fact, the interviewers are rarely on the admission committee; they just submit a post-interview report. The adcoms then review the interview along with the rest of your file and make their decision.

In fact, lots of schools offer interviews to people they don't ever expect to accept.

 

[Depakote]

If you're invited for an interview, you have a chance at an acceptance. From there, it really does vary from school to school.

My understanding of a few different school's systems is that a lot of schools do it like this:

Every aspect of your file is assigned a set of points. GPA, MCAT, LORs, PS, ECs, Interview, Etc. It is a complex way to make even the human students a number score so they can compare you against all the other candidates.

You get an interview ranking based on your performance. This is treated like any other part of your file. Then you go to committee. The committee votes and your interviewer traditionally defends you/makes an argument as to why you should be accepted. There is a vote... more points are added to your total score.

So, does the rest of your file matter post-interview? Yes, in many cases. Because it remains part of your composite score. The higher your composite score, the better your odds.

As said before, many schools do it differently... you can probably find some that will base the post-interview decision solely on the interview. But the majority of the ones I understand use some variation of the system above.

 

[Mister Pie]

I'm pretty sure that at the very least, the auto-invite schools will go on to consider the rest of your application.

 

[Phoenix.]

Does anyone think that the odds of getting an acceptance are higher if you are interviewing at the beginning of the interview season? I would think that things get more competitive (and harder to get an acceptance) at schools with rolling admissions.

 

[Abilene85]

Does anyone think that the odds of getting an acceptance are higher if you are interviewing at the beginning of the interview season? I would think that things get more competitive (and harder to get an acceptance) at schools with rolling admissions.

Yes.

 

[barto123]

I'm pretty sure that at the very least, the auto-invite schools will go on to consider the rest of your application.

i havent heard of auto-invite schools. why would schools waste your time and money if they have no intention of offering you acceptance?

 

[Phoenix.]

i havent heard of auto-invite schools. why would schools waste your time and money if they have no intention of offering you acceptance?

What do you mean by "i haven't heard of auto-invite schools"? Pitt and UMich give auto-invites (i.e., just based on primary app/numbers). And I guess, essentially Vandy does too since their secondary is a guaranteed interview.

 

[barto123]

What do you mean by "i haven't heard of auto-invite schools"? Pitt and UMich give auto-invites (i.e., just based on primary app/numbers). And I guess, essentially Vandy does too since their secondary is a guaranteed interview.

well excuuuuse me 🙂

 

[Mister Pie]

i havent heard of auto-invite schools. why would schools waste your time and money if they have no intention of offering you acceptance?

Well as phoenix1 already stated, some schools invite you based on numbers. I don't know if these schools invite you thinking "let's reject him", it's probably computer based if anything. They're probably just assuming someone who has a 3.8 and 38 MCAT is probably going to be pretty qualified but there will certainly be some rare cases when some have nothing else going for them in their file.

 

[HumidBeing]

My understanding is that schools are looking for a "good fit." That doesn't necessarily mean the highest scores & GPA. If it did, they wouldn't have to bother w/interviews, EC's, LOR's, and essays. They also strive for diversity; not just ethnic and gender diversity, but diversity in experience and interest.

The interview is a chance to present yourself as a package. Then they decide if educating you will fit their mission. Once they've decided that, yes, you are a suitable candidate, it gets more hazy because there are always more "good fits" than there are slots. You come to a point where it's just luck and timing.

 

[artaxerxes]

In fact, lots of schools offer interviews to people they don't ever expect to accept.

haha, well said. A lot of people with great interviews still get rejected later on, which means that almost certainly not everyone has the same chance at an interview.

 

[Law2Doc]

Interviews contribute to your overall file. They don't supercede it. In fact, the interviewers are rarely on the admission committee; they just submit a post-interview report. The adcoms then review the interview along with the rest of your file and make their decision.

In fact, lots of schools offer interviews to people they don't ever expect to accept.

Depends on the school. At some schools they use the initial file to see if you make the cut, and if you do, the interview becomes the single most important thing. A couple of schools even tell you that everyone who made it to that tier has been deemed potentially admissible. So yes, the interview can make and break you and many people who ultimately get into the school were people who weren't as good on paper as some of their co-interviewees. In med school you will meet a ton of folks who gave their application a great bump by being exceptional in person. You will also see people who are amazing on paper show up on SDN next year as reapplicants. I disagree that "lots of schools offer interviews to people they don't ever expect to accept". This may be true of the auto-interviews, since they never read the app. But in general schools don't waste their own faculties time interviewing anyone who doesn't at least have a mathematical chance of getting in. Go into every interview assuming it is your slot to win or lose. Be prepared, energetic, interested, engaged. You only get this shot once (per school).

 

[Law2Doc]

haha, well said. A lot of people with great interviews still get rejected later on, which means that almost certainly not everyone has the same chance at an interview.

Well, lots of people aren't good judges of how well they interview, so whether they even had a "great interview" is going to be debatable. Additionally you not only need to have a great interview, but it has to be better than eg 2/3 of the other folks the interviewer will have seen. If a thousand people interview and half had great interviews, there will still be about 200 people who had great interviews who won't get in.

 

[Kikaku21]

Depends on the school. At some schools they use the initial file to see if you make the cut, and if you do, the interview becomes the single most important thing. A couple of schools even tell you that everyone who made it to that tier has been deemed potentially admissible. So yes, the interview can make and break you and many people who ultimately get into the school were people who weren't as good on paper as some of their co-interviewees. In med school you will meet a ton of folks who gave their application a great bump by being exceptional in person. You will also see people who are amazing on paper show up on SDN next year as reapplicants. I disagree that "lots of schools offer interviews to people they don't ever expect to accept". This may be true of the auto-interviews, since they never read the app. But in general schools don't waste their own faculties time interviewing anyone who doesn't at least have a mathematical chance of getting in. Go into every interview assuming it is your slot to win or lose. Be prepared, energetic, interested, engaged. You only get this shot once (per school).

Yeah.. I agree that this probably is not true. There are plenty of good applicants out there. Its not like they need to invite a bunch of people they have no intention of accepting to kill time. It makes no sense what so ever for them to waste time and money on this.

 

[badasshairday]

Good thread. thought I would bump it.

 

[Phoenix.]

I ran some numbers on some of the schools I have invites to, and I found that generally at a school you're instate for (regardless of whether it's public or private), you generally have a 2/3 chance of getting accepted after your interview. For a school that you're OOS for, it's more like 1/3. Not sure if that applies to top tier schools though (as I don't have any top tier interviews), but it seems to be a good rule of thumb.

 

[Quix]

I ran some numbers on some of the schools I have invites to, and I found that generally at a school you're instate for (regardless of whether it's public or private), you generally have a 2/3 chance of getting accepted after your interview. For a school that you're OOS for, it's more like 1/3. Not sure if that applies to top tier schools though (as I don't have any top tier interviews), but it seems to be a good rule of thumb.

If only, if only.

 

[artaxerxes]

I ran some numbers on some of the schools I have invites to, and I found that generally at a school you're instate for (regardless of whether it's public or private), you generally have a 2/3 chance of getting accepted after your interview. For a school that you're OOS for, it's more like 1/3. Not sure if that applies to top tier schools though (as I don't have any top tier interviews), but it seems to be a good rule of thumb.

the numbers at medschoolready doesn't quite agree with that,

I'd say in state is like 20-30% post interview, out of state is 10-20

 

[Phoenix.]

If only, if only.

Well, I'm IS at Loyola and RFU, and that 62% and 65% of IS interviewees get accepted at those schools, respectively. I'm OOS at UVM, Tulane and GWU, and 34%, 29% and 28% OOS interviewees get accepted at those schools, respectively. Granted, all interviewees at GWU are basically OOS, but still. I'm sure this doesn't hold true for all schools (and probably becomes much less accurate for top tier schools), but I thought it was a decent guideline for low & mid tier schools. *shrug*

 

[Phoenix.]

the numbers at medschoolready doesn't quite agree with that,

I'd say in state is like 20-30% post interview, out of state is 10-20

I used US News figures, which are supposedly reported to them by the schools themselves. Perhaps the years sampled are different. I didn't look at medschoolready.

 

[etf]

of course the odds are better the earlier your interview - not only are there more seats open, but the fact that you got an interview so early reflects the relative strength of your candidacy.

 

[154241]

Well, I'm IS at Loyola and RFU, and that 62% and 65% of IS interviewees get accepted at those schools, respectively. I'm OOS at UVM, Tulane and GWU, and 34%, 29% and 28% OOS interviewees get accepted at those schools, respectively. Granted, all interviewees at GWU are basically OOS, but still. I'm sure this doesn't hold true for all schools (and probably becomes much less accurate for top tier schools), but I thought it was a decent guideline for low & mid tier schools. *shrug*

What source do you have for your numbers? I'm not doubting you, I just have the MSAR and that only gives interviewed/matriculated numbers, nothing about how many are accepted. I would really like to know how many interviewees are accepted (and don't necessarily matriculate) at a given school.

 

[154241]

I used US News figures, which are supposedly reported to them by the schools themselves. Perhaps the years sampled are different. I didn't look at medschoolready.

oops never mind

 

[mordounhas]

MSAR is tricky b/c its just matriculation. I do prefer the median vs average way of looking at students though (gives a truer sense of how you stack up, I think.)

 

[Phoenix.]

MSAR is tricky b/c its just matriculation. I do prefer the median vs average way of looking at students though (gives a truer sense of how you stack up, I think.)

I found that it makes paying for the premium online edition of US News rankings worth it. You get the number of applicants, interviews, accepted and enrolled for each school, and usually it's also broken down by IS and OOS. Granted, this is coming from the schools, so if they don't fill out the survey, it's not in there (i.e., EVMS isn't).

 

[Daydreamer2008]

Interviews contribute to your overall file. They don't supercede it. In fact, the interviewers are rarely on the admission committee; they just submit a post-interview report. The adcoms then review the interview along with the rest of your file and make their decision.

In fact, lots of schools offer interviews to people they don't ever expect to accept.

I really don't think that's accurate. I have been told that the #1 reason for an interview is that the school wants to sell themselves to you. (told to me by an Ad com member). An interview means they are truly interested in you. Why would they tell you to come all the way to their school if they don't expect to accept you?

 

[Tropicana100]

Open vs. closed interviews makes a difference too. Open interviews can be very biased. If your interviewer knows your scores, they might have a skewed view of your actual interview performance.

 

[etf]

I really don't think that's accurate. I have been told that the #1 reason for an interview is that the school wants to sell themselves to you. (told to me by an Ad com member). An interview means they are truly interested in you. Why would they tell you to come all the way to their school if they don't expect to accept you?

i have a feeling that it might be accurate. a school might interview someone just for the sake of saying that they interviewed a person like that. that way, people with similar (mediocre) stats will be like - "hey, it's possible" and then shell out $100 for a secondary. plus, the more you interview, the more you can reject, boosting your "yield/selectivity."

 

[Law2Doc]

I really don't think that's accurate. I have been told that the #1 reason for an interview is that the school wants to sell themselves to you. (told to me by an Ad com member). An interview means they are truly interested in you. Why would they tell you to come all the way to their school if they don't expect to accept you?

They are truly interested in you, and the one thing you can count on in this process is that they aren't about to waste their OWN precious time. So if they invited you in, you have an opportunity to get in, if you can sell yourself effectively. However, although I have no doubt an adcom might tell you the above, the #1 reason they have you in for an interview is for you to sell yourself to the school. Schools are getting as many as 10,000 applications so they absolutely are quite aware they are in a buyer's market. You have to wow them more than vice versa. If it were otherwise, they wouldn't be evaluating you and having the interviewer report back to the adcom, and the interview wouldn't be of great weight (and it is).

 

[Law2Doc]

i have a feeling that it might be accurate. a school might interview someone just for the sake of saying that they interviewed a person like that. that way, people with similar (mediocre) stats will be like - "hey, it's possible" and then shell out $100 for a secondary. plus, the more you interview, the more you can reject, boosting your "yield/selectivity."

See my prior post. The hours of clinicians' time they spend in interviews is worth more than the handful of fees the schools might get. Folks are often being interviewed by chairmen, deans and other folks whose time is worth a premium. They aren't about to waste those people's time unless the applicants have a shot.

 

[etf]

See my prior post. The hours of clinicians' time they spend in interviews is worth more than the handful of fees the schools might get. Folks are often being interviewed by chairmen, deans and other folks whose time is worth a premium. They aren't about to waste those people's time unless the applicants have a shot.

if another 1000 people apply at $100 a pop for the next 10 years, i'm sure it's a great investment of the dean's time

 

[Law2Doc]

if another 1000 people apply at $100 a pop for the next 10 years, i'm sure it's a great investment of the dean's time

Perhaps, but no one at the school is going to jerk a dean's chain that way. If they interviewed all these low number folks with med student interviewers or others with similarly no clout, that might be different. But they don't. 🙂

 

[Jaded03]

Perhaps, but no one at the school is going to jerk a dean's chain that way. If they interviewed all these low number folks with med student interviewers or others with similarly no clout, that might be different. But they don't. 🙂

USC has a med student interview. 😛

 

[Jaded03]

In all honesty, I think they do look at you when they ask for an interview thinking this is a quality candidate for their school. Having said that, they also know they eliminate around 3/4 of them. I think during the interview, they're looking for a reason to reject you. Maybe that's just my own jaded look at interview. 😛 It's a lot like a driver's test, they're just seeing how much red on their review sheet is for a 1. rejection, 2. waitlist, 3. acceptance. 😛

 

[Law2Doc]

In all honesty, I think they do look at you when they ask for an interview thinking this is a quality candidate for their school. Having said that, they also know they eliminate around 3/4 of them. I think during the interview, they're looking for a reason to reject you. Maybe that's just my own jaded look at interview. 😛 It's a lot like a driver's test, they're just seeing how much red on their review sheet is for a 1. rejection, 2. waitlist, 3. acceptance. 😛

Schools certainly look for unequivocal reasons to reject applicants -- it makes the job easier. But that being said, most people who make the interview cut can hold it together for an hour interview and a tour. So you really need to be better than the other 3/4. Just not screwing up doesn't get you there. As I said above, you can usually assume the school wouldn't be wasting their valuable time talking to you if you didn't have a reasonable shot of getting in if you perform well. The clinicians and professors who do interviews could be seeing patients or doing research -- they are spending time for free to help out the dean/school. And certainly they could have given your interview slot to someone else -- they are finite. So the fact that they invited you in and lined someone up to talk to you should tell you you have a shot. Might not be a slam dunk, but you will meet plenty of people in med school who netted very long three pointers. And plenty of folks who are 7'7" on paper who miss the free throws and end up waitlisted. Make your shot a good one.

 

[etf]

Perhaps, but no one at the school is going to jerk a dean's chain that way. If they interviewed all these low number folks with med student interviewers or others with similarly no clout, that might be different. But they don't. 🙂

i mean, most of it is the dean's idea - that's how they got to become dean in the first place

 

[Virgil]

I'm probably going to be shot down for this, but I think you guys are overanalyzing things. You cannot control who the schools feel they should reject or accept...just do your best to mold yourself into the most excellent candidate you can be.

 

[Old Grunt]

Well, I'm IS at Loyola and RFU, and that 62% and 65% of IS interviewees get accepted at those schools, respectively. I'm OOS at UVM, Tulane and GWU, and 34%, 29% and 28% OOS interviewees get accepted at those schools, respectively. Granted, all interviewees at GWU are basically OOS, but still. I'm sure this doesn't hold true for all schools (and probably becomes much less accurate for top tier schools), but I thought it was a decent guideline for low & mid tier schools. *shrug*

For what it's worth, I am pretty sure Tulane gives zero consideration for in state versus out of state as it is private.

I did undergrad there, and that was my understanding. They aren't bound by the LA legislator to accept a certain number of instate students.

LSU is a different story entirely.

 

[Jaded03]

Whether or not they feel like getting an interview is so critical that the purpose of the previous applications is now null is really unknown. I think the interview is just another secondary (tertiary if you will). Once you get it, you become "complete". The interview is more likely to be a review sheet added to your application material so far. I was just stating that in the end you don't know how you get accepted and the chances are still worse than a coin flip at the interview stage. However, without the interview, you stand zero chance. So from the perspective of everyone else you have a solid chance of getting accepted.