Do interviews really matter?

[MicroSteph]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I was recently interviewed at a school I am very interested in. My first interview was going great until he said this:

"I don't know how they choose between the applicants. You're the 19th person I've interviewed this cycle and everyone has been really nice."

After that, I spoke to the other applicants and everyone said they had a great interview.

Another school mentioned that they just had "conversations" and not "interviews".

If the interviews aren't to challenge you but rather to chat with you genially, how do they determine if you deserve to get an acceptance over the next person?

I guess my question is that I am really interested in two reach schools and I want to believe that my interview skills could get me an acceptance, but it seems like they don't really serve a greater purpose in the grand scheme of things. Does anyone else feel this way? Does anyone know just how much schools care about interviews? LizzyM, how is it at your institution?

 

[CognitiveSci]

If they didn't matter, why would they have them? (Not trying to sound rude).
They do matter. An interview is the time for a school to get to know you as a person because up until then you've been nothing but numbers and stats on paper. Interviews aren't meant to break you, so that's probably why no know comes out the room crying and saying how horrible it was. Generally, they're good. It's the outstanding/impactful/memorable (in a good way) interviewees that ultimately get in, however.

To answer you last question, don't go into an interview trying to use a set of skills or say the cookie-cutter things that MAY get you in. Be yourself.

A great interview may be the reason why you get in versus someone else with the same or better stats.

 

[MicroSteph]

I don't have cookie cutter things, which is why I rely on the interview to express my interest in medicine. Coming from public health, my experiences are not the same as the undergraduate pre-med students. I guess my concern is that, without an emphasis on my interview, I may appear to be less qualified for medical school.

 

[BABSstudent]

They matter. I have better stats than some of the other applicants to my state school but I botched one of the answers. It wasn't anything bad that I said, I just could have done much better with the answer.

Anyways, the lower numbers got an immediate acceptance because he had a great interview. I have been placed "Still under consideration" for the last three months. Hopefully it will change to an acceptance soon, but who knows.

 

[MedPR]

Yes they definitely matter. I went into my first 6-7 interviews thinking "don't be weird and you'll get in" (result = wait list). I was totally wrong and I wish I had prepared more.

 

[Jas1360]

Considering I was rejected after an interview, yes they matter. I also have a weaker GPA to contend with so I have to have a very strong interview to make up for that. An average interview will get a good stat applicant an acceptance but not someone with my stats.

 

[GrabSlamBoot]

In my opinion. If you have good stats and a well rounded application then a OK interview won't really affect your outcome where as a bad or superb interview will. LizzyM describes the ladder rung scenario whenever she is asked this question, and so far in my own application process, this has been the case for me. I definitely think a superb interview can and will aid your application though.

 

[CognitiveSci]

I don't have cookie cutter things, which is why I rely on the interview to express my interest in medicine. Coming from public health, my experiences are not the same as the undergraduate pre-med students. I guess my concern is that, without an emphasis on my interview, I may appear to be less qualified for medical school.

Well, you definitely want to talk about those different experiences in your personal statements; let those experiences speak for you until you can do so for yourself in the interview.

You could also try mock interviews with a collegue or something and ask for their feedback. Were you interesting? Boring? Based on what you know of me, do you think I expressed myself well and truly? Etc...

 

[cest la vie]

It matters. However, not everyone who interviews is on an equal playing field. Some people are misinformed and think once you receive an II that you'll have the same chance as everyone else of getting admitted. This is not the case (at least at most schools). Everyone is ranked and that includes their stats, ECs, rec letters, essays, demographics, and interview. That means that applicants that are deficient in one of the areas need to make up for it by having a stellar interview. Thus, you can conclude that having a mediocre interview at a school that you are already very competitive for may not affect your chances of getting in so much. The underdogs coming in need to knock the interview out of the ball park.

Of course a school would not extend an II to an applicant they have no desire of admitting or else it would be a complete waste of time for both parties. If you get an II you have a chance.

 

[MelissaThompson]

They matter. I have better stats than some of the other applicants to my state school but I botched one of the answers. It wasn't anything bad that I said, I just could have done much better with the answer.

Anyways, the lower numbers got an immediate acceptance because he had a great interview. I have been placed "Still under consideration" for the last three months. Hopefully it will change to an acceptance soon, but who knows.

One mediocre answer doesn't really have that much of an impact. I think the flow/general impression throughout the interview is the most important factor - were you passionate, enthusiastic, sincere...etc etc..

Those lower stat people could have also had better LORs, PS, and ECs...

 

[MicroSteph]

It matters. However, not everyone who interviews is on an equal playing field. Some people are misinformed and think once you receive an II that you'll have the same chance as everyone else of getting admitted. This is not the case (at least at most schools). Everyone is ranked and that includes their stats, ECs, rec letters, essays, demographics, and interview. That means that applicants that are deficient in one of the areas need to make up for it by having a stellar interview. Thus, you can conclude that having a mediocre interview at a school that you are already very competitive for may not affect your chances of getting in so much. The underdogs coming in need to knock the interview out of the ball park.

Of course a school would not extend an II to an applicant they have no desire of admitting or else it would be a complete waste of time for both parties. If you get an II you have a chance.

I guess I had heard that once you got the interview, they deemed you "academically qualified" for the school and then they were only looking for "fit". I think I naively wanted that to be true and hoped that the good interviewing I've had would bring me an acceptance.

As far as practicing, I've just finished all my interviews and the one that rattled me the most was near the end. I grew up with a mom who was in Human Resources, so luckily I've had a lot of practice and experience with interviewing.

 

[MelissaThompson]

I guess I had heard that once you got the interview, they deemed you "academically qualified" for the school and then they were only looking for "fit". I think I naively wanted that to be true and hoped that the good interviewing I've had would bring me an acceptance.

As far as practicing, I've just finished all my interviews and the one that rattled me the most was near the end. I grew up with a mom who was in Human Resources, so luckily I've had a lot of practice and experience with interviewing.

Microsteph - you have such limited clinical experience and yet you received a MD acceptance?? Wow...no wonder all my ex's live in texas..

 

[MicroSteph]

Microsteph - you have such limited clinical experience and yet you received a MD acceptance?? Wow...no wonder all my ex's live in texas..

I have a DO acceptance, and was interviewed at every school I applied to. My experiences with health care and health in general are non-traditional, and only limited in that sense. And I'm not sure what your exes have to do with that. 🙂

 

[circulus vitios]

If they didn't matter, why would they have them? (Not trying to sound rude).

Tradition, arrogance, self-aggrandizement, etc.

 

[red doctober]

I guess I had heard that once you got the interview, they deemed you "academically qualified" for the school and then they were only looking for "fit".

This really isn't the case. In general, adcoms will still take into consideration grades/mcat while evaluating applicants post-interview. As an analogy for how it may work, before the interview applicants are ranked. After the interview, applicants can move up or down a few spots in the ranking depending on how the interview went, but the initial ranking is still very important.

 

[MicroSteph]

This really isn't the case. In general, adcoms will still take into consideration grades/mcat while evaluating applicants post-interview. As an analogy for how it may work, before the interview applicants are ranked. After the interview, applicants can move up or down a few spots in the ranking depending on how the interview went, but the initial ranking is still very important.

This makes much more sense, thank you. Despite the fact that this doesn't necessarily work in my favor, I think that's very fair.

 

[cest la vie]

I guess I had heard that once you got the interview, they deemed you "academically qualified" for the school and then they were only looking for "fit". I think I naively wanted that to be true and hoped that the good interviewing I've had would bring me an acceptance.

As far as practicing, I've just finished all my interviews and the one that rattled me the most was near the end. I grew up with a mom who was in Human Resources, so luckily I've had a lot of practice and experience with interviewing.

That would be nice for some (including me) but logically it doesn't make sense. A lot of applicants come off as very sincere, mature, passionate, and great with people. There's no way a school could admit all of them so it only makes sense that there's a tie breaker (everything else). Interviews are a necessary part of the process still and is important to weed out the weirdos (thus, high stat and overqualified applicants can still get the boot). Medicine requires passion, great communication skills, high level of integrity, people skills, and etc. The only way to access this is by an interview.

Anyways, I see that the most of your interviews were after the start of pre-match so I'm sure you will hear some good news come match day and during WL movement. I'm rooting for you. 👍

 

[passionformed]

I don't have cookie cutter things, which is why I rely on the interview to express my interest in medicine. Coming from public health, my experiences are not the same as the undergraduate pre-med students. I guess my concern is that, without an emphasis on my interview, I may appear to be less qualified for medical school.

Different is usually good. As long as it supports your commitment to being a doctor, doing something different can only help.

 

[Planes2Doc]

Tradition, arrogance, self-aggrandizement, etc.

While interviews make sense for the stated reasons, I did notice something kind of strange.

Law schools don't have interviews, and people complain about lawyers.
Medical schools have interviews, and people complain about doctors (hence the new 2015 MCAT).

So what's the problem here? 😕

 

[AcutelyObtuse]

During one of my interviews at an MD school, the person I was interviewing with literally fell asleep in the middle of it (the school only offered a single faculty interview). I still got accepted with stats just above their mean (according to matriculant data from the MSAR) and I'm an Asian male if that means anything. My ECs were decent for the school but nothing spectacular. Not saying that my experience is representative of med school interviews in general, but it seems to suggest that they can vary greatly in how they weigh the interview relative to the rest of your application.

 

[MedPR]

While interviews make sense for the stated reasons, I did notice something kind of strange.

Law schools don't have interviews, and people complain about lawyers.
Medical schools have interviews, and people complain about doctors (hence the new 2015 MCAT).

So what's the problem here? 😕

People complain too much.

 

[Frazier]

Interviews are HUUGGEE, that is, unless you have a 3.7+, 38+... in which case they are basically just a "formality". 😉

 

[PennDippody]

I thought at first that they were more of a formality too. Like, "Just make sure this guy isn't a douche" kinda thing. I learned very quickly that it is a lot more. I think I owe all of my success to interview skills (and the luck that coincides with interviewing with deans). Let's be honest, my GPA sucks. I think the interviews in my case allowed me to clearly articulate (not excuse) my reasons for some grades as well as vouch for my medical school candidacy by highlighting other things in my app and life story. For some it just may not matter (either you have no chance or every chance) but for ppl like me, the interviews were absolutely integral.

 

[MicroSteph]

Anyways, I see that the most of your interviews were after the start of pre-match so I'm sure you will hear some good news come match day and during WL movement. I'm rooting for you. 👍

Thank you!! 😀

 

[Planes2Doc]

Interviews are HUUGGEE, that is, unless you have a 3.7+, 38+... in which case they are basically just a "formality". 😉

 

[IncognitoGuy]

Don't forget that schools have missions which may or may not be reinforced/align with what you present as an applicant. Interviews that are more conversational may still be steered towards seeing how applicants fit with a school's mission - hence another way of 'fit', separate from personality.

And I realize that many, many missions tend to start bleeding into each other with common elements (I found this out after going through the MSAR at length). But you can be sure that the school knows what they want, and the interview can only help to give more insight into a person beyond what they put on paper.

 

[mcloaf]

Interviews are HUUGGEE, that is, unless you have a 3.7+, 38+... in which case they are basically just a "formality". 😉

If only

 

[circulus vitios]

While interviews make sense for the stated reasons, I did notice something kind of strange.

Law schools don't have interviews, and people complain about lawyers.
Medical schools have interviews, and people complain about doctors (hence the new 2015 MCAT).

So what's the problem here? 😕

Medical school interviewers and admissions committee members seem to pride themselves on "seeing through the bs" and "getting to know the real applicant." They must be superhuman -- walking, talking lie detectors; masters of psychological analysis.

I want to meet Philip Markoff's interviewers.

 

[sliceofbread136]

I'm probably gonna get flamed for saying this, but it's because all the people who just went in there to have a conversation and be friendly we're doing it WRONG. You need to sell yourself, not just talk about random bullcrap for half an hour.

 

[PennDippody]

I'm probably gonna get flamed for saying this, but it's because all the people who just went in there to have a conversation and be friendly we're doing it WRONG. You need to sell yourself, not just talk about random bullcrap for half an hour.

👍

 

[pp77]

In my experience, they matter a great deal, however, it's very difficult to win an interviewer over. In all of my "good" interviews, the interviewer had clearly read my application very closely and was impressed by one or more aspects of it; in the interviews that weren't so good, it seemed like the interviewer either hadn't read the application at all, or they were just very unimpressed with it.

The feeling I got (at least for the open-file interviews) was that the interviewer had made up his or her mind before I even walked through the door. As others have mentioned, though, having sky-high numbers or other factors can make up for middling interviews, which is another good reason for pre-meds to focus on their GPAs and MCATs, rather than depending on being "good" interviewers in order to get in (I thought I was a good interviewer).

 

[RegisBioMedMS]

Yes, they matter. How much they matter varies from school to school. One school we work with weights their interview points at 80% of the total ranking!

 

[Morzh]

Another school mentioned that they just had "conversations" and not "interviews".

That's what they want you to think.

I agree that the traditional 1-on-1 interview format is not that great. MMI's are better. What they should do is take out into the woods for a couple of days and put you through a series of rigorous physical and psychological stamina tests.

 

[sliceofbread136]

That's what they want you to think.

Yup. Don't fall for that crap.

 

[Lucidity]

That's what they want you to think.

I agree that the traditional 1-on-1 interview format is not that great. MMI's are better. What they should do is take out into the woods for a couple of days and put you through a series of rigorous physical and psychological stamina tests.

Count me. This would beat normal interviewing any day of the week.

 

[Barcu]

I'm probably gonna get flamed for saying this, but it's because all the people who just went in there to have a conversation and be friendly we're doing it WRONG. You need to sell yourself, not just talk about random bullcrap for half an hour.

I think you are right. By in large, interviews are quite conversational and pretty much everyone seems to "do well." It's not just to weed out the weirdos because honestly, there aren't that many. You need to sell yourself and go out beyond just having a conversation. You have some control over the interview, especially if it seems conversational. Don't be too bossy or dominant, but you can have some role in guiding the interview.

Edit: A really important way to sell yourself is to have really good reasons to go to that SPECIFIC SCHOOL!

 

[Barcu]

Medical school interviewers and admissions committee members seem to pride themselves on "seeing through the bs" and "getting to know the real applicant." They must be superhuman -- walking, talking lie detectors; masters of psychological analysis.

I want to meet Philip Markoff's interviewers.

While I'm sure some adcoms overstate their ability to select the perfect applicants, I don't think they need to be superhuman to get a good gauge of the applicant.

Think about when you meet people for the first time. You have reactions to them. Sometimes they are unfair or premature reactions, but usually they are pretty accurate. We aren't all walking lie-detectors, but we have pretty good natural mechanisms of detecting if people are sincere or not, and most people aren't so good at bsing that they won't trip up at some point. And we get even better with experience. If you've been in admissions for years, I'm sure you get a pretty good handle on applicants. Just as many older docs are able to tell a lot about patient just from a short conversation.

 

[Planes2Doc]

While I'm sure some adcoms overstate their ability to select the perfect applicants, I don't think they need to be superhuman to get a good gauge of the applicant.

Think about when you meet people for the first time. You have reactions to them. Sometimes they are unfair or premature reactions, but usually they are pretty accurate. We aren't all walking lie-detectors, but we have pretty good natural mechanisms of detecting if people are sincere or not, and most people aren't so good at bsing that they won't trip up at some point. And we get even better with experience. If you've been in admissions for years, I'm sure you get a pretty good handle on applicants. Just as many older docs are able to tell a lot about patient just from a short conversation.

When I interviewed at companies that I couldn't care less about as an undergraduate, I never made it past the first round of interviews. But when I interviewed for airlines, I managed to land job offers. What was the difference? I was passionate about airplanes since I was a kid. I managed to talk up a storm with the interviewers, and we actually had a pleasant time.

Now what's the problem with medical school interviews? While a lot of people have good intentions about their desires to pursue medicine (many people have them as kids), they can end up bombing the interview if they can't end up BSing the things they actually don't care about. I could talk about my love of airplanes for hours. I could talk about my love for medicine for hours. Now if I try talking about my hospital bed cleaning experiences, I will have to spend quite some time thinking of a good response.

It's not genuine!!!

I think the process has become horrific in the number of unrealistic expectations that are expected of its applicants. What's the point of being able to genuinely talk about your passion for medicine if you can't fake your passion for the check-boxes that were expected of you?

I think that continuously pushing applicants to do things with expectations that are nothing short of a fantasy end up being counter-productive to the school's mission. The school probably ends up throwing away real gems who can't BS, and accepts phoneys that have excellent BSing skills.

 

[Jas1360]

That's what they want you to think.

I agree that the traditional 1-on-1 interview format is not that great. MMI's are better. What they should do is take out into the woods for a couple of days and put you through a series of rigorous physical and psychological stamina tests.

That would be awesome, I'd ace it!

 

[Barcu]

When I interviewed at companies that I couldn't care less about as an undergraduate, I never made it past the first round of interviews. But when I interviewed for airlines, I managed to land job offers. What was the difference? I was passionate about airplanes since I was a kid. I managed to talk up a storm with the interviewers, and we actually had a pleasant time.

Now what's the problem with medical school interviews? While a lot of people have good intentions about their desires to pursue medicine (many people have them as kids), they can end up bombing the interview if they can't end up BSing the things they actually don't care about. I could talk about my love of airplanes for hours. I could talk about my love for medicine for hours. Now if I try talking about my hospital bed cleaning experiences, I will have to spend quite some time thinking of a good response.

It's not genuine!!!

I think the process has become horrific in the number of unrealistic expectations that are expected of its applicants. What's the point of being able to genuinely talk about your passion for medicine if you can't fake your passion for the check-boxes that were expected of you?

I think that continuously pushing applicants to do things with expectations that are nothing short of a fantasy end up being counter-productive to the school's mission. The school probably ends up throwing away real gems who can't BS, and accepts phoneys that have excellent BSing skills.

Then don't just check boxes. I understand that there are things that you have to do (some clinical volunteering and shadowing). However, you are free to do the ECs you please and the ones that you are actually passionate about are the ones that make a difference when you talk about them in interviews and write about them in essays.

If your time cleaning sheets wasn't what you were passionate about, then don't try to force something out of the experience. You can talk about what you learned from the experience but don't try to bs an answer about how it made you passionate about medicine if that's not the case. Talk about what actually inspired you to pursue medicine. This is what I meant when I said you do have some power to guide the interview in directions you want it to go. And adcoms want to hear you talk about those experiences.

I'm having some trouble with your argument. If you aren't passionate about your medical experiences (or if you can't find something you got out of them), I'm a bit confused how you would know you are passionate about medicine. A lot of applicants think this is all time wasted, and they can't wait to move onto "real medicine," but those experiences, while not the most fun, do matter.

 

[911 Turbo]

They're partly to see that you don't have a personality disorder/ social disorder and aren't a complete weirdo.




So I guess 90% of the SDN will fail the interview?

(not srs)













































(semi srs)

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

They're partly to see that you don't have a personality disorder/ social disorder and aren't a complete weirdo.

This is what pre-meds like to think because it's very comforting; "I'm a social butterfly and really outgoing, I'll be fine! The interview is only there to weed out those creepy nerds, ie anyone who has a better GPA/MCAT than I do." While an interview can turn up those things (I say "can" because if you're smart enough to make it to an interview at a well ranked med school, you're smart enough to know how to fake being sociable for an hour), that's not their point. The point of med school interviews, like any other job interview, is to ensure that you're a match for the school and really are who you say you are on your application. The interview is there to do things like:

- Check that you weren't full of **** when you described your ECs, as well as get more detail about the interesting ones
- See if you're actually interested in the school, and for a legitimate reason
- Find out if you'll be a good match for the school (that seemingly benign question about what you think about the state or if you have family in the area could really be the interviewer trying to figure out if you're really going to stay in the state for your career like the school intends).
- Get the story behind any concerning parts of an application
- And yes, look at personality and any red flags related to that.

Basically interviews are there to get to know you better, and for you to get to know the school better. That last part is something a lot of people forget, and then they wonder why they got rejected after their "good" interview.

 

[MedPR]

They matter. I have better stats than some of the other applicants to my state school but I botched one of the answers. It wasn't anything bad that I said, I just could have done much better with the answer.

Anyways, the lower numbers got an immediate acceptance because he had a great interview. I have been placed "Still under consideration" for the last three months. Hopefully it will change to an acceptance soon, but who knows.

He might (probably does) have a better application than you besides stats too.

 

[sliceofbread136]

I'll share how I approached interviewing, as I feel it was my strongest factor in the application cycle:

My goal: be likable and try to have a fun "conversation" while still conveying why I think I would be addition to the school and medical community.

Preparation:
Step 1: Get material to incorporate into my answers. I had 3 categories: traits I have that will make me a good doctor, why I want to be a doctor, and my views on healthcare policy (this category was slightly different than the other 2). I wrote down many couple word phrases in each one of these categories. I then thought of stories from my apps extracurriculars that substantiated these traits. I would then use these stories in my interview answers. This allows you to "prove" you have these traits, and to keep the interview interesting.

Step 2: Practice working the material into answers. I typed out my answers to a couple of big questions like "why do you want to be a doctor" and "why do you think you'll make a good doctor". Next I printed out a big list of questions and had my girlfriend "quiz" me with them. She would ask me a question and I would answer it by incorporating my material from step 1. After a good amount of practice I got really good at it.

Step 3: Mock interviews. This is where I practiced the other stuff like trying to maintain eye contact, acting natural, being positive, energetic, and enthusiastic. These things, while little on their own, make a huge difference all in all.

Step 4: The actual interviews. I tried to make my lower tier school interviews first so I could use them as more practice. I also just tried to stay calm. I also spent the beginning of the day trying to figure out what the school wanted in a student. At Baylor it seemed they want people who did alot of different things, so I emphasized how varied my interests were. At Pitt the med students at the lunch literally told me that the dean said to look for "creative" students, so I emphasized my different aspects of creativity. These little things can also give you a huge boost.

tl'dr: This was my method for interviewing. I thought it worked very well for me, so I thought I would share it. Read it if you want.

 

[911 Turbo]

This is what pre-meds like to think because it's very comforting; "I'm a social butterfly and really outgoing, I'll be fine! The interview is only there to weed out those creepy nerds, ie anyone who has a better GPA/MCAT than I do." While an interview can turn up those things (I say "can" because if you're smart enough to make it to an interview at a well ranked med school, you're smart enough to know how to fake being sociable for an hour), that's not their point. The point of med school interviews, like any other job interview, is to ensure that you're a match for the school and really are who you say you are on your application. The interview is there to do things like:

- Check that you weren't full of **** when you described your ECs, as well as get more detail about the interesting ones
- See if you're actually interested in the school, and for a legitimate reason
- Find out if you'll be a good match for the school (that seemingly benign question about what you think about the state or if you have family in the area could really be the interviewer trying to figure out if you're really going to stay in the state for your career like the school intends).
- Get the story behind any concerning parts of an application
- And yes, look at personality and any red flags related to that.

Basically interviews are there to get to know you better, and for you to get to know the school better. That last part is something a lot of people forget, and then they wonder why they got rejected after their "good" interview.

well

 

[ilikevegetables]

I'll share how I approached interviewing, as I feel it was my strongest factor in the application cycle:

My goal: be likable and try to have a fun "conversation" while still conveying why I think I would be addition to the school and medical community.

Preparation:
Step 1: Get material to incorporate into my answers. I had 3 categories: traits I have that will make me a good doctor, why I want to be a doctor, and my views on healthcare policy (this category was slightly different than the other 2). I wrote down many couple word phrases in each one of these categories. I then thought of stories from my apps extracurriculars that substantiated these traits. I would then use these stories in my interview answers. This allows you to "prove" you have these traits, and to keep the interview interesting.

Step 2: Practice working the material into answers. I typed out my answers to a couple of big questions like "why do you want to be a doctor" and "why do you think you'll make a good doctor". Next I printed out a big list of questions and had my girlfriend "quiz" me with them. She would ask me a question and I would answer it by incorporating my material from step 1. After a good amount of practice I got really good at it.

Step 3: Mock interviews. This is where I practiced the other stuff like trying to maintain eye contact, acting natural, being positive, energetic, and enthusiastic. These things, while little on their own, make a huge difference all in all.

Step 4: The actual interviews. I tried to make my lower tier school interviews first so I could use them as more practice. I also just tried to stay calm. I also spent the beginning of the day trying to figure out what the school wanted in a student. At Baylor it seemed they want people who did alot of different things, so I emphasized how varied my interests were. At Pitt the med students at the lunch literally told me that the dean said to look for "creative" students, so I emphasized my different aspects of creativity. These little things can also give you a huge boost.

tl'dr: This was my method for interviewing. I thought it worked very well for me, so I thought I would share it. Read it if you want.

👍 awesome advice.

A little while ago someone posted an article that surveyed adcom members about what factors were most important pre-interview and post-interview. I don't have the link to the article but it showed that interview evaluations moved up to being the most important factor. I've met with adcom members who expressed the same sentiment, and I've heard Deans of Admissions say that basically, if you don't majorly screw up the interview then it won't factor in much at the adcom meeting. That said, I think every school is different, every adcom meeting is different, and every decision is made for different reasons, so it's impossible to say one way or another for individual decisions.

 

[r1d1]

Interviews are HUUGGEE, that is, unless you have a 3.7+, 38+... in which case they are basically just a "formality". 😉

Based on AMCAS stats, a constant % of applicants with 3.7+/38+ get rejected every year. I'd think they screwed up the interview. So yes, interviews matter.

 

[circulus vitios]

I'm probably gonna get flamed for saying this, but it's because all the people who just went in there to have a conversation and be friendly we're doing it WRONG. You need to sell yourself, not just talk about random bullcrap for half an hour.

I've heard this advice for any type of interview. What does that even mean? I mean you're not unique or special. Schools have upwards of 10,000 applicants.

"Well gosh I just care so much about helping people and I'm so smart. Look at all the research I've done. The people who wrote my letters of recommendation even said I'm a great person. I also like these wacky and zany hobbies. I was also the president or founder of some meaningless organization. Accept me, accept me!"

The whole "sell yourself" angle comes off as pathetic and desperate.

I'm sure the interview does play a big role in the decision to accept or reject an applicant but ultimately it is absolutely pointless. Beyond ascertaining whether or not an applicant is a socially awkward weirdo, interviewers cannot glean anything in a 1 hour time span. If interviewers are trying to determine fit, what is it based on? Mission statements are so incredibly vague and uniform -- we strive for clinical excellent, we serve the underserved, we aim to create medical scientists and leaders in medicine, etc. -- that it's impossible for the cookie-cutter EC premed to not meet the mission statement criteria.

 

[kgpremed11]

I was recently interviewed at a school I am very interested in. My first interview was going great until he said this:

"I don't know how they choose between the applicants. You're the 19th person I've interviewed this cycle and everyone has been really nice."

After that, I spoke to the other applicants and everyone said they had a great interview.

Another school mentioned that they just had "conversations" and not "interviews".

If the interviews aren't to challenge you but rather to chat with you genially, how do they determine if you deserve to get an acceptance over the next person?

I guess my question is that I am really interested in two reach schools and I want to believe that my interview skills could get me an acceptance, but it seems like they don't really serve a greater purpose in the grand scheme of things. Does anyone else feel this way? Does anyone know just how much schools care about interviews? LizzyM, how is it at your institution?

This is interesting. I had an interview in 2011 and, the interviewer didn't ask me any questions really, she just went over my app. The setup was weird too, It was just her and I in a small dark dimly lit room. After the interview was over she looks at me and goes "you seem like a nice young man?" I dont know if I was being paranoid but seems like she was flirting with me or something??? Well I didn't get in, maybe I was suppose to flirt back or something else 🙁.

 

[SoulinNeed]

Yes, they matter. Absolutely.