Do interviews really matter?

[sazerac]

As a med student, I do applicant interviews. They count for just as much as a faculty interview here. Our interviews are closed, meaning I have no idea who you are or what you have claimed to do.

We have some interview topics we are required to hit, concerning leadership and organization skills and other generic stuff, but by far the most important part of the evaluation is where we give each applicant a numerical rating and write a little blurb about why (or why not) we think they should go here.

So I think, at least at our school, it really is about whether or not you can hold a conversation for half an hour. Whether you seem like a fun person. Whether I would like to work alongside you one day.

That being said, the folks who get invited to interview are amazing. Just amazing. I am humbled to be near you guys, because you have done so much more than I ever have. I doubt I would qualify for my own school if I reapplied. Plus you guys are all fun to talk to. That has been the general consensus of my fellow interviewers too.

Which brings us back to the real question... When presented with week after week of glowing reviews of our applicants, how on earth does the adcom decide who gets an acceptance? I dunno, but I hope to find out in four years and report back

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jhu6569]

Posting here as a present faculty member with 35+ years of medical education experience, ranging from perhaps THE top-rated med school in the world to my latest, and frankly most fulfilling, choice to end my career by helping a brand new school to emerge.

You simply CANNOT compare the interview process between disparate schools. Some schools do not pre-screen, others pre-screen to the point that if you actually get to interview? - your chances improve very markedly. Very markedly.

In my educated opinion, most of the posts on this thread are certainly well-intended and sincere, BUT relatively uniformed. Personal anecdotal experience should never be taken as career guidance advice.

My suggestion? when interviewed, simply answer, react, and behave as you as an individual ARE. Never think that you can "con" the interviewers - they are MUCH more skillful is this arena than are you. Always be honest. Certainly, be positive. QUESTION?? Have you read, considered, and utilized in your application/interview the MISSION STATEMENT of the particular institution with which you are currently in conversation? If not - you might have already "failed" the interview process.

To all, good luck, but realize that a successful interview is based upon competency, preparation, mission "fitness", and yes certainly, that intangible but always present factor of good fortune.

 

[ShenanigansMD]

The only problem I have with interviews is how schools are forced to choose applicants based off first impressions. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there are applicants that know how to put on a show when their application is exaggerated.

But every profession has this problem in hiring, or in this case admissions. So yes, interviews are necessary.

 

[Medstart108]

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?

Thats always a warning sign when they mention other applicants. My last interview i had that mentioned: "Oh i will be interviewing other applicants over the next few weeks and i have only one spot" (this is for a summer research position) It's usually a sign that they have already lost interest in you. I wouldn't hold your hopes up too high for that one.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

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.

If an adcom member from your top choice school came up to you and said "What makes you think you deserve to go to my school?", what would you say? "Nothing sir, there's no reason why I should be accepted to your school. I'll withdraw my application now out of politeness, sorry for wasting your time"?

Keep in mind that you don't have to rehash your CV. You can (and should) highlight your strong personal traits and experiences that have you made you worthy of acceptance.

As for mission statements, they're hints at what the school values. For example, the med school I work at has a mission statement about serving underserved populations in the state. During the interviews they look for signs that an applicant is likely to remain in the state after graduation and after residency, and what their likelihood of working in an underserved area is. For example, has the applicant lived in the state for a very long period of time and do they love rural areas? If so, that guy just got a big boost. Meanwhile if another person comes in talking about how much she loves city life and would love to move to California one day, well, hopefully one of their other schools will accept them. Likewise, a mission statement about wanting to create medical scientists means you better at least act like you love research. Go on a diatribe about how much you love helping people and want your whole career to be primary care and you'll probably get rejected. If a school talks about wanting to make leaders, you better show them that you've got leadership traits during the interview.

 

[circulus vitios]

If an adcom member from your top choice school came up to you and said "What makes you think you deserve to go to my school?", what would you say? "Nothing sir, there's no reason why I should be accepted to your school. I'll withdraw my application now out of politeness, sorry for wasting your time"?

Keep in mind that you don't have to rehash your CV. You can (and should) highlight your strong personal traits and experiences that have you made you worthy of acceptance.

As for mission statements, they're hints at what the school values. For example, the med school I work at has a mission statement about serving underserved populations in the state. During the interviews they look for signs that an applicant is likely to remain in the state after graduation and after residency, and what their likelihood of working in an underserved area is. For example, has the applicant lived in the state for a very long period of time and do they love rural areas? If so, that guy just got a big boost. Meanwhile if another person comes in talking about how much she loves city life and would love to move to California one day, well, hopefully one of their other schools will accept them. Likewise, a mission statement about wanting to create medical scientists means you better at least act like you love research. Go on a diatribe about how much you love helping people and want your whole career to be primary care and you'll probably get rejected. If a school talks about wanting to make leaders, you better show them that you've got leadership traits during the interview.

You can say that you're smart, empathetic, hard working, proactive, etc., but the examples you cite as evidence of these traits have been repeated a thousand times before.

"I volunteered in a nursing home. Some sappy story about old people, etc. I learned a lot and I'm clearly compassionate and caring."

"I did research on x where I solved several problems. As you can see from my PI's letter of recommendation and my publication, I'm intelligent and hard working."

Your personality traits aren't interesting or unique and your experiences aren't interesting or unique. The idea that you can sell yourself in a non-technical interview -- that is, the vast majority if not all medical school interviews -- is ridiculous.

As for the mission statement, it's just a contest of which pre-med can show the most conviction in his or her lies. Many schools want to serve underserved populations. I shadowed several family medicine physicians in an underserved area and I will lie about my desire to help the underserved.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

You can say that you're smart, empathetic, hard working, proactive, etc., but the examples you cite as evidence of these traits have been repeated a thousand times before.

"I volunteered in a nursing home. Some sappy story about old people, etc. I learned a lot and I'm clearly compassionate and caring."

"I did research on x where I solved several problems. As you can see from my PI's letter of recommendation and my publication, I'm intelligent and hard working."

Your personality traits aren't interesting or unique and your experiences aren't interesting or unique. The idea that you can sell yourself in a non-technical interview -- that is, the vast majority if not all medical school interviews -- is ridiculous.

As for the mission statement, it's just a contest of which pre-med can show the most conviction in his or her lies. Many schools want to serve underserved populations. I shadowed several family medicine physicians in an underserved area and I will lie about my desire to help the underserved.

May as well not put any of that stuff down on your application either. After all, most pre-meds will have whatever you have in some form or another, why bother listing any of it if it isn't super duper special? Adcoms have seen it all before, it won't impress anyone.

 

[circulus vitios]

May as well not put any of that stuff down on your application either. After all, most pre-meds will have whatever you have in some form or another, why bother listing any of it if it isn't super duper special? Adcoms have seen it all before, it won't impress anyone.

Which is why I view the interview process as a personality test, not as an opportunity to sell mundane personal qualities.

 

[sliceofbread136]

Just because other people might have talked about what you are trying to sell doesn't mean you can't sell it...

 

[LodgeJig]

There's another aspect to interviews that is being overlooked: the school selling itself. Why conduct interviews? Because applicants facing multiple acceptances have the ball in their court. From my interview experience I felt it was more about the school impressing applicants than the other way around.

 

[lobo.solo]

I hope so, I am quite charming

 

[flodhi1]

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?

Everyone thinks they had a great interview but how many actually get accepted? lol makes you think about how subjective the word great can be.

 

[MelissaThompson]

its def. about being charming to your interviewer..

My approach with a male inteviewer - is def. different than if I get a female interviewer..

There are certain things women can do to make a male more sympathetic - but a female would see right through it...

 

[darkjedi]

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.

Having done a bunch of interviews I can say that it's honestly a mixture of both being able to hold a conversation mixed in with salesmanship. The conversation, if you are a social creature, should be easy, but it's the selling yourself that can be quite difficult. There is definitely a right way and a wrong way. It's easy to come off as arrogant if you are just listing off all your accomplishments. However those who interview best are the ones who are able to exude passion and energy in talking about their interests. As an interviewer, I really enjoy talking to people who are able to work in their accomplishments naturally when talking excitedly about their activities. You can very easily tell those who are genuinely interested in things like underserved communities, global health, policy, etc, but you can also very easily see through people who say these things because they think that is what the school wants to hear. Merely being conversational would not cut it, you need substance in order to let the school know what you can offer to them as a student there. The interview is far from being simply a personality test.

I will also tell you that interview feedback is a very critical component to the application. You may be surprised as to how varied interviewees are in their abilities to be able to interview, hold conversation, and talk about their passions.

 

[pp77]

The fact that so many schools have formalized a re-interview rule kind of says it all in my mind. Of course every doctor/scientist/medical student thinks he can pick the promising future physicians, but is there any proof that they actually can? Most formal studies of interviews indicate that they are very weak predictors of future performance.

 

[911 Turbo]

its def. about being charming to your interviewer..

My approach with a male inteviewer - is def. different than if I get a female interviewer..

There are certain things women can do to make a male more sympathetic - but a female would see right through it...

Lol


Wut




That reminds me of the "should I sleep with my professor" thread

 

[Ichiban88]

.

 

[lobo.solo]

its def. about being charming to your interviewer..

My approach with a male inteviewer - is def. different than if I get a female interviewer..

There are certain things women can do to make a male more sympathetic - but a female would see right through it...

Please give a thorough description of what you would do.

 

[sliceofbread136]

Please give a thorough description of what you would do.

Better yet post pics.

 

[lobo.solo]

I plan on using this http://www.pheromone-sprays.net/pheromones-for-social-interaction.html
Do you guys think it could work?

 

[lobo.solo]

Better yet post pics.

 

[futureczar]

I think part of how important the interview is depends on who the interviewer is in relation to the adcom. Are they a voting member of the committee, or are they someone who just likes to do interviews. Different people have different levels of influence over your application. I would assume the opinion of someone who has been at the instutition as a doctor for his entire career and been on the committee for 20 years carries a lot more weight than someone who is interviewing for the first time.

Learned this the hard way when I had the most amazing interview of my life (went far longer than it should because we were having such a good conversation, was reassured multiple times that i was the perfect person for the school and that he wanted me there, told me that i should consider his specialty choice and that he wanted me to work with him) only to be waitlisted. If the person isnt part of the adcom, all they can do is write a good opinion of you and then hope that committee agrees.

 

[theWhat]

I seem to recall LizzyM using the ladder analogy in regards to interviews. If you have extraordinary stats and ec's you will be on a higher rung going into the interview, whereas if you have average stats you may be in the middle or lower rung. Based on your interview performance you may move up or down the ladder, some may fall off.

 

[pp77]

Learned this the hard way when I had the most amazing interview of my life (went far longer than it should because we were having such a good conversation, was reassured multiple times that i was the perfect person for the school and that he wanted me there, told me that i should consider his specialty choice and that he wanted me to work with him) only to be waitlisted. If the person isnt part of the adcom, all they can do is write a good opinion of you and then hope that committee agrees.

I had two interviews at two different schools that were like this, and got waitlisted at both schools. To be fair, neither interviewer ever guaranteed me a spot or anything like that, but it just goes to show how random the whole process is.

Come to think of it, every time I've gotten a "I hope to see you here" type comment, it was followed by a waitlist and/or rejection. My interviewers where I got accepted, by contrast, were pretty coy.

 

[PreMedOrDead]

Question: Do interviews really matter?
Answer: Yes. The amount depends on the school.

 

[ilikevegetables]

I had two interviews at two different schools that were like this, and got waitlisted at both schools. To be fair, neither interviewer ever guaranteed me a spot or anything like that, but it just goes to show how random the whole process is.

Come to think of it, every time I've gotten a "I hope to see you here" type comment, it was followed by a waitlist and/or rejection. My interviewers where I got accepted, by contrast, were pretty coy.

Man, I sure hope this doesn't end up being true for me... I had a very similar experience at my top choice.

Also, I was talking with an interviewer about my (sincere!) desire to work with underserved populations, and my interviewer made some comment like "you really seem to be committed to this" in an odd tone of voice. I hadn't even thought of the fact that maybe she was surprised. I just hope she wasn't being sarcastic.

 

[MelissaThompson]

Man, I sure hope this doesn't end up being true for me... I had a very similar experience at my top choice.

Also, I was talking with an interviewer about my (sincere!) desire to work with underserved populations, and my interviewer made some comment like "you really seem to be committed to this" in an odd tone of voice. I hadn't even thought of the fact that maybe she was surprised. I just hope she wasn't being sarcastic.

+1. My interview at Temple went like this - "We certainly hope to see you here next fall!" - flat out rejection.

 

[Member 331305]

+1. My interview at Temple went like this - "We certainly hope to see you here next fall!" - flat out rejection.

Actually, my experience so far has been the opposite. I had an interviewer who told me to join her lab once fall rolled around; I was subsequently accepted. On the other hand, I've had dead silence from the schools that didn't explicitly express an interest in me.

Just goes to show you that anything can happen

 

[r1d1]

Come to think of it, every time I've gotten a "I hope to see you here" type comment, it was followed by a waitlist and/or rejection. My interviewers where I got accepted, by contrast, were pretty coy.

The same with mine, too.

 

[pyrrion89]

Based on what I've read (and talking to several AdComms myself), it's all about:

(1) Personal character: Are you humble, hard-working, passionate, and sociable?
(2) Preparedness: Did you actually take the time to get to know the school and its mission? Did you brush up on what you did for your research before discussing it with the interviewer? Et cetera.
(3) Thoughtfulness: Do your responses demonstrate you adequately understand the profession to which you plan to devote your life?
(4) Vibe: The sum of your microexpressions, body language, and vocal behaviors creates a gestalt that forms an impression of you to the interviewer. Do you seem like you are lying, disinterested, or genuinely passionate?

 

[ericksonj15]

.

 

[nabilesmail]

Aside from my first interview, my other three were very conversational, I come off as a pretty cheery dude I think, but I got the worst possible outcomes at 4 schools, rejected (though this one I knew I would get), Alt list. (they hardly reject, very conversational, but not too much substance, everyone felt they did good), Rejected (average interview length was 40 min, mine lasted 70 min, very conversational, I talked about what I wanted in a med school, and later in the convo she reiterated what that school was about)-rejected outright

My stats were also higher for each school.

YOU MUST SELL YOURSELF, being friendly, conversational, smiley is not enough!!

I don't know why people think its just about weeding out the weirdo's, or the stereotype that premeds are dorky. Pre-meds are honestly probably the most social people in university, think about it, most of them are in MULTIPLE clubs, hold LEADERSHIP in multiple activities, have HUNDREDS of hours talking to NEW PEOPLE (patients), interact with many professionals (doctors, Pi's, etc).

Don't assume your better than the rest because your sociable, at my interviews, I only recall one interview where we had a few quiet kids, the rest were fun, smiley, and interesting vibrant people. YOU HAVE TO BE BETTER THAN THAT

 

[BecksTriad]

YES. of course they matter! According to a survey conducted by the AAMC the #1 factor that determines your acceptance to a medical school is...the interview! THEY ABSOLUTELY MATTER. prepare for every interview like it's your last. It is your only chance to sell yourself to a school. Make them remember you (in a good way of course). the power of the interview is undeniable.

 

[VictorAlpha]

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?

Yes the interviews are really important. Although I am not on an ADCOM, my impression of the interviews was a means for the ADCOM to get a face-to-face component of the applicant's application. Certainly, some interviewers may come out absolutely in love with some applicants. For the most part though, I would see things as a thumbs up or down from the faculty. I mean it has to be less important than the application as a whole because it is just a 15-45 min talk on one day...how could that overshadow 4(+) years of academics and ECs. Having said that, if an applicant is breaking a record for a poor interview by exhibiting all manor of unethical and abhorrent speech and action well yeah, that would be more important than 4 years of 4.0 and a boatload of important ECs. I bet it doesn't go the other way though. If the interview is awesome it probably matters a whole lot less than if it was bad by the same degree.

My impression was that they interview you. The interviewer then basically gives an up/down recommendation with a few comments and then they consider applicants applications as a whole.

BTW, when you hear the bolded...that's a lie and you should know it. Yes, they want to have a conversation, they want to get to know you and so they want you to be relaxed and be yourself. But don't for a second think they aren't listening and watching carefully to your demeanor, mannerisms and words.
I heard the "conversation" line at an interview and I immediately thought, "yeah..a conversation...but you are going to be judging everything I say here..." Obviously, I didn't contest the "conversation" line when it was thrown at me, I just went with it. And it worked out!

 

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

Interviews matter, but they shouldn't. They don't predict anything other than how much your interviewer liked you.

http://peds.stanford.edu/faculty-resources/documents/MedSchoolAdmissions.whatpredictssuccess.pdf

http://www.drexelmed.edu/ELAM/program_ELAM-forum2011-Wells.pdf

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-006-9031-5

 

[pyrrion89]

My impression was that they interview you. The interviewer then basically gives an up/down recommendation with a few comments and then they consider applicants applications as a whole.

This. It may depend on the school, but I know at at least one school (which I will not name), the interviewers are your advocates for the (hidden?) review committee which ultimately makes the executive decision of whether you're in or out. Essentially you talk to your interviewer, he or she writes a small 1 page essay (or a self-made verbal report) explaining what they thought of you and their overall recommendation. Usually these advocate recommendations are like,

Applicant 1: "Overall, I think this applicant is interesting but not terribly so. I'd only advocate for her if her application is strong."

Applicant 2: "Her responses were a little naive and short. I question whether or not she has carefully considered her interest in medicine. I would have a hard time recommending her to our school."

Applicant 3: "I think she'd make a great doctor; I think we should take her even if her stats are slightly below our average."

So I guess the adcomms treat these interviewer-written essays as just another layer to consider and it can move you up and down the ladder. Obviously if you're a strong applicant going in you really have to bomb the interview and, of course, the school invites weaker applicants to give them a shot, but even if they do well they can only climb so far from their bottom starting position, and many just can't do the ridiculously stellar performance they need to get out from their hole. This is probably why you get students reporting they aced the interview and got accepted (Applicant #3 with poor stats). or they bombed a few questions and got in anyway (Applicant #1 with strong stats). Applicant 2 I suppose is a dead fish unless her application has something stellar.

 

[Dbate]

According to the AAMC survery of med school admissions offices, the Interview is the most important factor in determining who to admit.

Source: https://www.aamc.org/download/261106/data

Factors Used to Determine Admissions

Rank:
Interview recommendation (4.5)
Letters of recommendation (3.8)
GPA: Cumulative science and math (3.7)
Community service: medical (3.6)
GPA: Cumulative (3.6)
MCAT Total scores (3.4)
Personal statements (3.4)
Medical/clinical work experience (3.4)
Community service: non-medical (3.3)
Leadership experience (3.2)
Completion of premedical requirements (3.1)
Experience with underserved populations (3.0)

 

[sliceofbread136]

According to the AAMC survery of med school admissions offices, the Interview is the most important factor in determining who to admit.

Source: https://www.aamc.org/download/261106/data

Factors Used to Determine Admissions

Rank:
Interview recommendation (4.5)
Letters of recommendation (3.8)
GPA: Cumulative science and math (3.7)
Community service: medical (3.6)
GPA: Cumulative (3.6)
MCAT Total scores (3.4)
Personal statements (3.4)
Medical/clinical work experience (3.4)
Community service: non-medical (3.3)
Leadership experience (3.2)
Completion of premedical requirements (3.1)
Experience with underserved populations (3.0)

I'm very skeptical about letters of rec being more important than gpa/mcat...

 

[sliceofbread136]

Aside from my first interview, my other three were very conversational, I come off as a pretty cheery dude I think, but I got the worst possible outcomes at 4 schools, rejected (though this one I knew I would get), Alt list. (they hardly reject, very conversational, but not too much substance, everyone felt they did good), Rejected (average interview length was 40 min, mine lasted 70 min, very conversational, I talked about what I wanted in a med school, and later in the convo she reiterated what that school was about)-rejected outright

My stats were also higher for each school.

YOU MUST SELL YOURSELF, being friendly, conversational, smiley is not enough!!

I don't know why people think its just about weeding out the weirdo's, or the stereotype that premeds are dorky. Pre-meds are honestly probably the most social people in university, think about it, most of them are in MULTIPLE clubs, hold LEADERSHIP in multiple activities, have HUNDREDS of hours talking to NEW PEOPLE (patients), interact with many professionals (doctors, Pi's, etc).

Don't assume your better than the rest because your sociable, at my interviews, I only recall one interview where we had a few quiet kids, the rest were fun, smiley, and interesting vibrant people. YOU HAVE TO BE BETTER THAN THAT

I agree. I don't know where people came up with the idea that they just want to see that you are not socially inept. At best half of the people that the interview will be accepted. Do you think the half they reject were socially inept? I think that's very far fetched.

 

[nabilesmail]

I'm very skeptical about letters of rec being more important than gpa/mcat...

I think that chart is saying, gpa/mcat are most important pre-intv. but LOR are mroe imp after the intv?

 

[pyrrion89]

I think that chart is saying, gpa/mcat are most important pre-intv. but LOR are mroe imp after the intv?

If you click the link it says that.

 

[sliceofbread136]

I think that chart is saying, gpa/mcat are most important pre-intv. but LOR are mroe imp after the intv?

Still have a hard time buying that...

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Still have a hard time buying that...

I think that MCAT/GPA is used more for screening purposes to weed out the unwanted applicants... Then everyone is on a level playing field and what matters are your ECs/LORs/Interview since those are what make each applicant unique...... which seems to go along with the AAMC data.

 

[pyrrion89]

I think that MCAT/GPA is used more for screening purposes to weed out the unwanted applicants... Then everyone is on a level playing field and what matters are your ECs/LORs/Interview since those are what make each applicant unique...... which seems to go along with the AAMC data.

To a point. Note that even the post-interview considerations list your scores as still important. It's not like we're seeing 2's and 1's.

 

[TheBossDoctor]

Interviews obviously don't matter that much since most of the cuts and selectivity is pre-interview. Only 10-15% of applicants usually get interviewed while 40-50% of interviewees get accepted. Maybe slightly lower at some schools but still, most applicants get weeded out before the interview.

 

[drivenworrywart]

Interviews matter and interviews require a lot of work! During the interview, you have to convince that person that you want to be a doctor and you want to become one by going to that school. You have to show how knowledgeable you are about the school and be able to articulate why you think it'd be a great fit for you! At the same time, you also have to show enthusiasm, exude confidence, and be very careful about the things you say and how you say them. Things can be misconstrued, which is why you have to go in the interview prepared, with a general idea of how you would answer certain questions. You have to be active and alert!

My job interview experience has taught me that interview experiences will vary greatly. Some interviewers will be very informal and throw you off. Some will be very formal and intimidate you. Some will be so nice and give you all this confidence in how well you're doing only to reject you later (yes, I'm a little bitter about that). You have to learn how to adjust to different people and different situations.

 

[sliceofbread136]

I think that MCAT/GPA is used more for screening purposes to weed out the unwanted applicants... Then everyone is on a level playing field and what matters are your ECs/LORs/Interview since those are what make each applicant unique...... which seems to go along with the AAMC data.

Ya I don't believe that sorry. High stats will help you at every stage of the game IMO, except at maybe a few exceptions like mayo.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Ya I don't believe that sorry. High stats will help you at every stage of the game IMO, except at maybe a few exceptions like mayo.

Of course they will... I didnt say that they will be dismissed entirely, but I am sure that schools try to weed out the high stat awkward people that cant even hold a conversation or seem weird/unstable... High stats dont help in those scenarios

I'm sure that a lot of non-trads arent 'high-stats' who are accepted all the time due to their unique experience.

 

[yehhhboiii]

it's easier to screen for interviews using numbers because of the sheer volume of applications but everything counts after the interview. before you are offered an interview, the question is "can this student handle medical school?" after the interview, it becomes "would I send a loved one to this person as their patient?"
something along those lines

 

[pandahunter]

I would say they don't really matter unless you bomb it. They've most likely made up their minds before you even say a word.