Do low stat people have no chance at reach schools?

[futureczar]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Ive heard a lot of people mention that the interview is just a part of the application process, and that the adcoms will consider all aspects of the application again after the interview. Given this fact, do low stat people have a much smaller chance of making it into reach school, even after reaching the interview stage? My gpa is below the 10% percentile for one of my reach schools and I have been offered an interview. Is it reasonable to think that without an excellent interview and enthusiastic support from my interviewer I stand no chance of getting accepted at this school?

 

[911 Turbo]

urm

 

[ShenanigansMD]

I'm pretty sure that if you've been invited to interview, they are really interested in you. There's probably a billion other applicants with (hypothetically) a 3.2, and they chose you over them as well as others with a 3.9.

But... get a nice suit.

 

[theseeker4]

Ive heard a lot of people mention that the interview is just a part of the application process, and that the adcoms will consider all aspects of the application again after the interview. Given this fact, do low stat people have a much smaller chance of making it into reach school, even after reaching the interview stage? My gpa is below the 10% percentile for one of my reach schools and I have been offered an interview. Is it reasonable to think that without an excellent interview and enthusiastic support from my interviewer I stand no chance of getting accepted at this school?

Stats at most schools of interviews vs acceptances mean the average applicant needs the interviewer's enthusiastic support to be offered a seat. Add in a far below average set of stats, and you could be anywhere from somewhat unlikely to be accepted to it being virtually impossible, based on far more factors than anyone can account for.

Do your best at your reach school interview, and it will be what it will be. No one can predict your odds, and no matter what they are your best chance comes from doing as well as you can.

 

[Nymphicus]

If they can otherwise convince the admissions committee that they will be able to handle the academic rigors of medical school and the board exams, they may have a chance.

 

[futureczar]

you could be anywhere from somewhat unlikely to be accepted to it being virtually impossible, based on far more factors than anyone can account for.

See that makes sense, but if I have such an incredibly low chance, why would they even waste their time? Im sure there are plenty of other people with higher stats they could have invited.

 

[Freesia88]

If they can otherwise convince the admissions committee that they will be able to handle the academic rigors of medical school and the board exams, they may have a chance.

OP read the above again...and then remind yourself that somehow with your low stats you got an interview...they must have seen something they liked. You probably should be worrying about owning that interview...😉

 

[theseeker4]

See that makes sense, but if I have such an incredibly low chance, why would they even waste their time? Im sure there are plenty of other people with higher stats they could have invited.

Well that is the low end of likelihood, of course. What is in adcoms heads' is not something I pretend to have any insight into, lol. Either way, your chances are better now than they were before you had an interview invite, so enjoy 👍

 

[qwerty2012]

Unless you are black, hispanic, eskimo, native american, martian, ppl who came through extreme hardship. nope

Honestly, I have heard URM applicants with extreme good ECs and diverse background, with gpa around 3.4-3.5ish who came from Ivies got into top 20 schools.

 

[MedPR]

Unless you are black, hispanic, eskimo, native american, martian, ppl who came through extreme hardship. nope

You forgot wealthy.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[theseeker4]

You forgot wealthy.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

Wealthy applicants to top schools are a dime a dozen. I doubt they care at all unless you are related to a huge donor.

 

[Lollygag]

I have always been under the impression that once you get to the interview stage, your stats become much less important. They reviewed your application already and the fact that you were invited for the interview means that they are confident in your ability to academically be successful at their school and that you have the experience that qualifies you for the position.

The purpose of the interview is to weed out the socially awkward, arrogant, rude, weird, unmotivated, inappropriate, boring people and then to weed out the others who might not fit the mission statement of the school, or who don't have the personality the interviewer is looking for, or those who aren't as charismatic, or who don't respond well to questions when they are nervous/under pressure or overall just not as interesting or passionate as they appeared on paper. The interview is to get to know the applicant in a way that you ordinarily would not be able to figure out by just looking at the application itself.

Once you get the interview, it is mostly, if not, all about how you present yourself.

 

[MedPR]

Wealthy applicants to top schools are a dime a dozen. I doubt they care at all unless you are related to a huge donor.

Well that's what I meant. Wealthy as in donate enough money for a new hospital ward.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[ilovemedi]

Wealthy applicants to top schools are a dime a dozen. I doubt they care at all unless you are related to a huge donor.

I see it in the sense that wealthy applicants = more opportunities = better chance... Esp if your parents are doctors... more connections IMO.

 

[Barcu]

I have always been under the impression that once you get to the interview stage, your stats become much less important. They reviewed your application already and the fact that you were invited for the interview means that they are confident in your ability to academically be successful at their school and that you have the experience that qualifies you for the position.

The purpose of the interview is to weed out the socially awkward, arrogant, rude, weird, unmotivated, inappropriate, boring people and then to weed out the others who might not fit the mission statement of the school, or who don't have the personality the interviewer is looking for, or those who aren't as charismatic, or who don't respond well to questions when they are nervous/under pressure or overall just not as interesting or passionate as they appeared on paper. The interview is to get to know the applicant in a way that you ordinarily would not be able to figure out by just looking at the application itself.

Once you get the interview, it is mostly, if not, all about how you present yourself.

Not really. Yes, the interview does weed out the weirdos, but after I went on a few interviews, I realized that there aren't that many out there. And most schools still only accept 1 out of 4 applicants.

You need to be able to present yourself well. Clearly the school saw something they liked in the OP. If you can figure out what that was and play it up, you do have a shot. Again, they aren't going to waste their time interviewing you for no reason.

Still, the entire application matters. You may have a good interview, and end up on the waitlist or rejected for any number of reasons. That's just how it works. Go to the interview, prepare for it well, and have a good interview. At that point, it is out of your hands. Good luck.

 

[Mjolner]

I thought LizzyM had shot down the whole wealthy donor can get you in thing. iirc, she said that the get interviews, but that doesn't mean they'll get accepted by any means.

 

[45408]

I thought LizzyM had shot down the whole wealthy donor can get you in thing. iirc, she said that the get interviews, but that doesn't mean they'll get accepted by any means.

Probably depends on the amount of money we're talking.

 

[LizzyM]

I have seen people with connections to big donors get interviews and I've seen some faculty kids get interviews but unless they have grades/scores that make us think that they can do the work, the passion for the work, and seem like a good fit for us (not weird, psychotic, inappropriate, etc) they will not get the nod. These are sometime called "courtesy interviews".

It is true that only about 5-10% of the applicants are in appropriate or unable to do the work. The reason why so many people are interviewed is that we have to interview the cream of the crop with the hope that 10% of them will choose our school over the 5-10 other offers they have. So we interview 400 with the hope of getting 40. That leaves x-40 seats to fill with "good fits" but again, we are often competing with schools that have a lower net cost either through lower tuition, lower cost of living, or larger scholarship budgets. And every school needs a waiting list just in case. So that is why so many are interviewed for so few seats.

Finally, some schools will reject few and waitlist many while others feel that the sting of a rejection is less painful that the purgatory of the eternal waitlist.

 

[JoeM]

I'm in a similar situation as the OP, although most of my stats (all except science gpa, which is below 10%) are between the median and 10th percentile of the school where I'm interviewing.

I know the interview is especially important at this school, because one of the two interviewers is a voting member of the admissions committee. So, I've been wondering: is the interview really the deciding factor regarding acceptance/rejection? How much do stats factor into a final decision after an interview? If someone has an excellent interview, does that mean they may still be rejected because of mediocre stats?

I've heard mixed things. Some say at this point, the interview is what is really important and what will ultimately determine the outcome of your application (along the lines of "your application gets you an interview, the interview gets you an acceptance"). However, others have said that even after the interview, every part of your application still plays a part.

 

[jesse120]

How much do stats factor into a final decision after an interview? If someone has an excellent interview, does that mean they may still be rejected because of mediocre stats?

I find that outcome to be very, very unlikely. Why would a school waste their time to interview a low- or mediocre-stat applicant only to reject them after an excellent interview? That's the whole point of interviewing them! They want that applicant to really impress them in person since they clearly impressed on paper.

IMO, stats mean a whole lot more before the interview than after. If you received an interview invite, that means they believe you are academically capable of handling the rigors of their program. If you get rejected after the interview, I doubt it's because they changed their mind. It'll probably have way more to do with personality and fit (and other stuff that people above have mentioned).

 

[MedPR]

I have seen people with connections to big donors get interviews and I've seen some faculty kids get interviews but unless they have grades/scores that make us think that they can do the work, the passion for the work, and seem like a good fit for us (not weird, psychotic, inappropriate, etc) they will not get the nod. These are sometime called "courtesy interviews".

It is true that only about 5-10% of the applicants are in appropriate or unable to do the work. The reason why so many people are interviewed is that we have to interview the cream of the crop with the hope that 10% of them will choose our school over the 5-10 other offers they have. So we interview 400 with the hope of getting 40. That leaves x-40 seats to fill with "good fits" but again, we are often competing with schools that have a lower net cost either through lower tuition, lower cost of living, or larger scholarship budgets. And every school needs a waiting list just in case. So that is why so many are interviewed for so few seats.

Finally, some schools will reject few and waitlist many while others feel that the sting of a rejection is less painful that the purgatory of the eternal waitlist.

That's your experience partly (mainly?) because you're at a top school, right? I mean, I assume the mid-tiers and low-tiers are probably interviewing people that won't have multiple acceptances so they don't necessarily have to worry about that as much.

I find that outcome to be very, very unlikely. Why would a school waste their time to interview a low- or mediocre-stat applicant only to reject them after an excellent interview? That's the whole point of interviewing them! They want that applicant to really impress them in person since they clearly impressed on paper.

IMO, stats mean a whole lot more before the interview than after. If you received an interview invite, that means they believe you are academically capable of handling the rigors of their program. If you get rejected after the interview, I doubt it's because they changed their mind. It'll probably have way more to do with personality and fit (and other stuff that people above have mentioned).

I agree with you, but I have heard of situations where some ADCOM members are ok with lower stats, and others are not. For simplicity lets consider a 3 member ADCOM. Member 1 reads your primary/secondary and decides you get to interview despite having low stats. Member 2 interviews you (closed file) and thinks you're awesome, and member 3 doesn't know anything about you until the entire ADCOM meets to decide post-interview. If Member 2 and Member 3 both aren't ok with low stat applicants, they'll probably vote to reject you. So even though you got an interview, and impressed during your interview, your stats still did you in.

Perhaps it is an extreme example, but as a low stat applicant, I am especially worried that it happens more often than we all think.

 

[CholeCystems]

Good point MedPR, never thought of that scenario before. That makes me more nervous! I heard some schools encourage you to send in update letters post-interview/pre-decision. Also heard some value an alumni LoR's post-interview. So many factors that goes into an acceptance ha....