Do medical schools interview applicants they most likely won't accept?

[DrShazam]

I have always heard medical schools will only interview candidates they are interested in accepting (as this process requires time and resources, both must be used efficiently), but reading the advice for re-applicants from the Ohio State Dean made me think otherwise.

I recently met with a rejected applicant who wanted to discuss reapplying. We went over his application and the admissions committee deliberations. It was clear that his undergraduate GPA was the problem. He had excellent experiences, including volunteer, community service, leadership and research. His MCAT score was only slightly lower than our school's average. His interview performance had not been stellar, but it was not bad either, and he would have had a significant chance of being offered an acceptance were it not for his low grades. The admissions committee liked him overall but was concerned that he would not be able to handle the medical school curriculum

Why did they invite him to interview if they were concerned about his ability to handle the medical curriculum from the get-go?

Just wanted to see what others think, and if someone who has experience as an admissions committee member can offer any insight into the interview selection process.

PS- Not trying to spread mass panic among this year's applicants. I am just curious. Click her for link.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[blizzah]

What I take from this is:

If his interview had been great/stellar instead of just not bad, he might have been offered acceptance, even with his low GPA.

 

[mauberley]

Why did they invite him to interview if they were concerned about his ability to handle the medical curriculum from the get-go?

They might have "loved" him in the interview, overshadowing any doubt about his academic ability.

It's all cumulative/holistic. At any point in the process, one can't say for sure that a weakness in an application is a deal-killer.

 

[flatearth22]

I know for some schools if they call you for an interview late in the season (Feb, March, April) you are essentially interviewing for a spot on the waitlist. They interview you, put you on the waitlist, and then give you an acceptance if enough people that they accepted chose to go elsewhere.

 

[pkwraith]

My personal experience with Ohio State (and a philosophy that's shared by many other schools) is that when you show up in an interview, you get a seat in the entering class. Whether you get to keep that seat is up to you in the interview. I'm borrowing that analogy directly from an Ohio State interview presentation.

They obviously thought that the applicant was able to keep a seat when they extended the original invitation. Everyone goes into an interview with deficiencies, and it's up to them to be able to explain the deficiency to the satisfaction of the interviewer. If someone has a merely okay interview, it still might not address their deficiencies in the mind of the interviewer. Ohio State makes acceptance decisions the same day as the Interview, so the last impression of the interview does make an incredible impact.

 

[IlDestriero]

If they offer you an interview, the spot is yours to lose. Not everyone is perfect, in spite of what you read here. People have deficiencies and the interview is a way to erase remaining doubt. It's worth noting that at some schools an interview means >50% chance of acceptance and at others the odds are much lower. I think Georgetown interviewed 5-10 times the number of offers back in the day, seems like a waste of everyone's time. They took pride in noting that at the interview, reminding everyone the odds were still against them. It rubbed me the wrong way. I had a great MCAT score but a bit below average grades from a highly regarded university, well rounded, etc. BUT my MCAT writing sample was horrible. Why? Who knows. It was one of the first questions I was asked about at every interview. I was articulate, pointed out several all essay upper level humanities A grades on my transcript and erased all doubt. If I was fumbling for words and didn't clearly answer the questions posed, I'm sure I would have gotten a stack of rejections instead. The interview is critical to acceptance, it is essentially everything by the time you're applying for a fellowship.
Killing the interview is critical.

 

[BrightandClear]

If they offer you an interview, the spot is yours to lose.

I don't think this is true.

I was interviewed at my in-state school during the last cycle and ultimately rejected. When I met with the director of admissions she explained that it was my grades that were the problem. Her words were pretty much identical to those quoted by the OP.

"the admissions committee liked you overall but was concerned that you would not be able to handle the medical school curriculum"

She said my interviewer spoke incredibly highly of me (we spoke about my academic performance in depth during my interview, and I laid out exactly why I was capable of excelling in medical school). It just wasn't enough to convince all the members of the admission committee.

Sometimes the spot is already lost, you just don't know it yet.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

there are some different dynamics at play at state schools, but generally i don't think med schools interview people for funsies. it takes resources to just bring you in to interview. logistical coordination, the time of busy faculty members, etc.

 

[eli20]

Several of the schools I interviewed at talked about how they only interviewed candidates who they felt were academically capable of handling the coursework. Some even had an entire committee who's only role was to vote on this perceived ability of the candidate before the rest of their application was even read by an entirely different group of people. How true this is I don't know, but I doubt that they are wasting an interview slot on someone who they're already going to say no to.

 

[wanderer]

The problem is that the selection process for an interview is very different than for acceptance. You can have two people select for an interview who might think that the applicant's low GPA isn't a problem but then the overwhelming majority of the committee thinks that it is a problem. Also they might be look for reasons the applicant had a low GPA and he never gave any.

At some schools it seems that if your GPA and MCAT are above certain numbers and you have a decent PS, you're almost guaranteed an interview. That doesn't mean you necessarily have much of a shot of acceptance if something about you conflicts with what they look for.

 

[nyny87]

One of my reach schools granted me an invite, even though my GPA is probably lower than 99% of anyone that they've ever accepted. The interview went absolutely perfectly. We were smiling, laughing; generally just an awesome conversation. She asked about everything on my application that I wanted to talk about, gave me a chance to explain anything that it lacked. Blah blah blah, it went really well; you get the point. Obviously I was ecstatic.

Result: Waitlisted: Rejected.

The way I see it is that once my application reached the adcom meeting, it was ultimately decided that the low stats outweighed the good interview. Still, I would say that I had a chance, but probably a damn small one. But that's life.

So that's just one story, but I don't think it's uncommon.

 

[iniquus]

Maybe he was borderline competitive academically and a traditional applicant. The school was possibly hoping for an update of his grades senior year.

 

[TOcho118]

When afforded an interview, you are being given the opportunity to go in there and WIN your spot in the incoming class. This is an OPPORTUNITY only given to a select few. There is a reason why the majority of interviewees are ultimately rejected as well. I would like to assume that at least half of, if not most people, interview fairly decently. When you interview, it is your spot to win, not to lose.

 

[willen101383]

I am a pretty solid interviewer...by the time I inteviewed I was 4 years out into the work world and had done plenty of interviews. I interviewed at NSU (DO) and had a stellar interview that just "felt" pefect. I ended up getting a straight reject...I called and spoke to the director of admissions since I felt so good about the interview. He said the same thing: "we felt that you may not be able to handle the curriculum. I laugh as I think back to how I had no problem staying at least 5 points above the mean on almost every exam I took last year.

But yeah...I dont think that you DEF have a seat when you are called to interview.

 

[LizzyM]

Adcoms sometimes interview marginal applicants with the hope that there is something that will explain a blemish on an otherwise spotless record. Maybe there was a personal or family crisis (house burned down, mother died, sibling suicide, etc) that wasn't mentioned in the application or other information that blows the interviewers away.

I don't like it but I will tell you that there are a few applicants (<10) each year that get interviews despite relatively poor applications because they have some "political pull". It is usually a given that unless they walk on water they won't get an offer of admission but the interview is given as a courtesy to someone high up in the administration.

 

[Whatyousay]

Adcoms sometimes interview marginal applicants with the hope that there is something that will explain a blemish on an otherwise spotless record. Maybe there was a personal or family crisis (house burned down, mother died, sibling suicide, etc) that wasn't mentioned in the application or other information that blows the interviewers away.

I don't like it but I will tell you that there are a few applicants (<10) each year that get interviews despite relatively poor applications because they have some "political pull". It is usually a given that unless they walk on water they won't get an offer of admission but the interview is given as a courtesy to someone high up in the administration.

How often do you find that these marginal candidates (political pull or not) end up receiving an offer of acceptance?

Is it something that happens very rarely, or does it occur frequently enough that you're not shocked when it occurs?

 

[coffeekid15]

It's cool to know that it's not just black and white, accept or reject. It sounds like they will look for reasons and/or explanations for inconsistencies.

 

[Law2Doc]

When afforded an interview, you are being given the opportunity to go in there and WIN your spot in the incoming class. This is an OPPORTUNITY only given to a select few. There is a reason why the majority of interviewees are ultimately rejected as well. I would like to assume that at least half of, if not most people, interview fairly decently. When you interview, it is your spot to win, not to lose.

This. You have to sell yourself. You are given nothing but an opportunity. Which is why you will see folks in the ultimate class who weren't the best on paper but come across amazingly in person, and conversely why there will be many folks who look amazing on paper but come across as very average in person. Med schools put huge weight on the interview precisely because medicine is such a communication oriented field.

 

[NickNaylor]

My personal experience with Ohio State (and a philosophy that's shared by many other schools) is that when you show up in an interview, you get a seat in the entering class. Whether you get to keep that seat is up to you in the interview. I'm borrowing that analogy directly from an Ohio State interview presentation.

They obviously thought that the applicant was able to keep a seat when they extended the original invitation. Everyone goes into an interview with deficiencies, and it's up to them to be able to explain the deficiency to the satisfaction of the interviewer. If someone has a merely okay interview, it still might not address their deficiencies in the mind of the interviewer. Ohio State makes acceptance decisions the same day as the Interview, so the last impression of the interview does make an incredible impact.

This just doesn't make sense. This would imply that a majority of the applicants that they interview somehow "blew it." I don't care what an admissions representative told you - I highly doubt that that's how it's actually done.

The majority of people that interview can likely hold a conversation, are engaging, and won't fall into the category of "please don't ever be a physician." In fact, there are probably people that have what most would consider great interviews but aren't accepted. There are simply too many qualified applicants for everyone to get an acceptance. Not everyone that gets rejected has to have a "deficiency." Some people just have more strengths.

 

[Strawberries]

Any tips/resources for doing well on the interview? (besides the previous interview questions on SDN)

 

[FIREitUP]

This just doesn't make sense. This would imply that a majority of the applicants that they interview somehow "blew it." I don't care what an admissions representative told you - I highly doubt that that's how it's actually done.

The majority of people that interview can likely hold a conversation, are engaging, and won't fall into the category of "please don't ever be a physician." In fact, there are probably people that have what most would consider great interviews but aren't accepted. There are simply too many qualified applicants for everyone to get an acceptance. Not everyone that gets rejected has to have a "deficiency." Some people just have more strengths.

I think most of those students are weeded out pre-interview, and now the adcom is focusing on more of the students that "fit" their mission.

 

[CodeBlu]

Adcoms sometimes interview marginal applicants with the hope that there is something that will explain a blemish on an otherwise spotless record. Maybe there was a personal or family crisis (house burned down, mother died, sibling suicide, etc) that wasn't mentioned in the application or other information that blows the interviewers away.

I don't like it but I will tell you that there are a few applicants (<10) each year that get interviews despite relatively poor applications because they have some "political pull". It is usually a given that unless they walk on water they won't get an offer of admission but the interview is given as a courtesy to someone high up in the administration.

This is ridiculous. That's a wasted interview essentially. So that these people can basically get outright rejected. How NOT cool. That spot could have been given to someone that actually deserved to interview and would make a great physician.

I like that you're fair LizzyM. Other adcoms take note! Hahaha.

 

[pkwraith]

This just doesn't make sense. This would imply that a majority of the applicants that they interview somehow "blew it." I don't care what an admissions representative told you - I highly doubt that that's how it's actually done.

The majority of people that interview can likely hold a conversation, are engaging, and won't fall into the category of "please don't ever be a physician." In fact, there are probably people that have what most would consider great interviews but aren't accepted. There are simply too many qualified applicants for everyone to get an acceptance. Not everyone that gets rejected has to have a "deficiency." Some people just have more strengths.

Having some sort of weakness equals "don't ever be a physician?". Everyone has weaknesses. Lack of enough strength is a weakness. Answering a question of "What is your weakness" with "I have no weakness" is not the correct answer.

Ignoring what Deans of Admissions is nice and all. You are in a nice position where you don't have to care anymore. But, they don't just say things to applicants just to make things up. ~50% acceptance rate for most schools for interviewees is pretty demonstrative of how close they are. Holding a conversation and being engagement is the bare minimum of what someone should be doing in an interview.

 

[LizzyM]

I'd estimate that 1% of the interviews go to people who would not have gotten an interview except for some political pull.

In one instance, we discovered a charming, talented applicant who would have been otherwise overlooked.

In 10 years, I can think of two applicants who got in over protests from many adcom members. One graduated and one is on track to graduate in 4 years so we weren't in those cases very accurate at identifying people who were high risk of academic failure.

 

[CodeBlu]

I'd estimate that 1% of the interviews go to people who would not have gotten an interview except for some political pull.

In one instance, we discovered a charming, talented applicant who would have been otherwise overlooked.

In 10 years, I can think of two applicants who got in over protests from many adcom members. One graduated and one is on track to graduate in 4 years so we weren't in those cases very accurate at identifying people who were high risk of academic failure.

Sometimes, you just need to give someone a chance. We've all been given one, at one point or another.

 

[gravitywave]

If they offer you an interview, the spot is yours to lose. Not everyone is perfect, in spite of what you read here. People have deficiencies and the interview is a way to erase remaining doubt.

this is profoundly false. or rather, it's true for some, and less true for others. some people are invited with the presumption that they'll be accepted unless they screw up the interview, others are invited on the basis that their file suggests that they can add something unique to the class, but it's apparent they are interviewing for a certain "role" and that they are competing, among those who are "similar," for a certain seat.

put yourself in the position of an adcom member who hears the presentation of an applicant's file, amidst so many others you've heard this cycle, at the adcom meeting, and this will make sense. bear in mind also that the schools with greater admissions resources can cast a wider net. "resources" mean "money" in this context.

 

[startswithb]

I don't think this is true.

I was interviewed at my in-state school during the last cycle and ultimately rejected. When I met with the director of admissions she explained that it was my grades that were the problem. Her words were pretty much identical to those quoted by the OP.

"the admissions committee liked you overall but was concerned that you would not be able to handle the medical school curriculum"

She said my interviewer spoke incredibly highly of me (we spoke about my academic performance in depth during my interview, and I laid out exactly why I was capable of excelling in medical school). It just wasn't enough to convince all the members of the admission committee.

Sometimes the spot is already lost, you just don't know it yet.

This happened at my state school last year. Got the interview, was pumped, thought I could "win them over," but was told straight up in the interview that my application needed work. Left the interview, cried somewhere in the hospital lobby for 45 minutes, then went in completely disenchanted to my next interview of the day. Blah, blah, blah, I know I'm getting rejected, blah.

Then I got feedback from the admissions director after my rejection. He told me to raise my MCAT "2 to 3 points," etc.

Retook it, raised it 7 points, the next year: ACCEPTED.

Although it SUCKED to feel led on, it was the ultimate catalyst that got my ass in gear. I mean, what's more motivating than getting a tour of the school and being so close you can taste it? I'm glad that some state schools take extra care to encourage their residents to keep trying if they really fit the mission but just aren't ready yet.

 

[BrightandClear]

Although it SUCKED to feel led on, it was the ultimate catalyst that got my ass in gear. I mean, what's more motivating than getting a tour of the school and being so close you can taste it? I'm glad that some state schools take extra care to encourage their residents to keep trying if they really fit the mission but just aren't ready yet.

What a great perspective. Thank you for sharing.

 

[CodeBlu]

This happened at my state school last year. Got the interview, was pumped, thought I could "win them over," but was told straight up in the interview that my application needed work. Left the interview, cried somewhere in the hospital lobby for 45 minutes, then went in completely disenchanted to my next interview of the day. Blah, blah, blah, I know I'm getting rejected, blah.

Then I got feedback from the admissions director after my rejection. He told me to raise my MCAT "2 to 3 points," etc.

Retook it, raised it 7 points, the next year: ACCEPTED.

Although it SUCKED to feel led on, it was the ultimate catalyst that got my ass in gear. I mean, what's more motivating than getting a tour of the school and being so close you can taste it? I'm glad that some state schools take extra care to encourage their residents to keep trying if they really fit the mission but just aren't ready yet.

Congratulations. Now that's determination.

 

[PlacentaSac]

Do not forget that at many medical schools the "Voting" members of the admissions committee are often not the same members that screen or offer interview invites. If they are, keep in mind that you still have to have a majority vote to get accepted. While one person feels you would be a good fit even with a low GPA, the majority may disagree (ie = rejection).

I have to agree with Nick, most people have a pretty solid interview. Most of the schools I interviewed at were very conversational and stress free. It seemed that they were just trying to get to know me.

Lastly, as far as Lizzy's comment on the 1%, what's the big deal? At least they don't hide it. Most of my secondaries asked if I had family that was faculty. Call it perks to the position. Besides, there is politics in everything. Even getting faculty positions have major politics behind them. My undergrad premed advisor was HORRIBLE/USELESS, I always wondered how she got the job?

my .02

 

[Baller MD]

Adcoms sometimes interview marginal applicants with the hope that there is something that will explain a blemish on an otherwise spotless record. Maybe there was a personal or family crisis (house burned down, mother died, sibling suicide, etc) that wasn't mentioned in the application or other information that blows the interviewers away.

I don't like it but I will tell you that there are a few applicants (<10) each year that get interviews despite relatively poor applications because they have some "political pull". It is usually a given that unless they walk on water they won't get an offer of admission but the interview is given as a courtesy to someone high up in the administration.

What is your definition of a marginal applicant (in terms of GPA and MCAT)?

 

[NickNaylor]

Having some sort of weakness equals "don't ever be a physician?". Everyone has weaknesses. Lack of enough strength is a weakness. Answering a question of "What is your weakness" with "I have no weakness" is not the correct answer.

Ignoring what Deans of Admissions is nice and all. You are in a nice position where you don't have to care anymore. But, they don't just say things to applicants just to make things up. ~50% acceptance rate for most schools for interviewees is pretty demonstrative of how close they are. Holding a conversation and being engagement is the bare minimum of what someone should be doing in an interview.

But that still doesn't address the fundamental point that your admissions contact made, which is that you have a seat in the entering class and that it's more or less yours to lose. My point is that very strong applicants that are very qualified - with no major weaknesses - STILL will not get accepted after interviewing at some schools. That throws your whole theory under the bus. Not having weaknesses or having small weaknesses isn't good enough. Even having many strengths isn't good enough. You have to have outstanding strengths. There are simply too many applicants for you to "have a seat in the class" as you put it. Anyone that tells you that is just trying to make you feel better or doesn't understand how their admissions process works. It simply doesn't make sense, because if that's REALLY the admissions philosophy at any school, they would completely obliterate their admissions quota and would accept way more students than they do.

Also, I never said that a weakness equates to "don't be a physician." You didn't read my post correctly. I said that most people that interview do NOT possess some sort of major defect that will make an interviewer say "please don't ever be a physician." Not even the same thing.

 

[Seven of Nine]

My personal experience with Ohio State (and a philosophy that's shared by many other schools) is that when you show up in an interview, you get a seat in the entering class, unless they've already extended too many acceptances by that point in time. Whether you get to keep that seat is up to you in the interview. I'm borrowing that analogy directly from an Ohio State interview presentation.

They obviously thought that the applicant was able to keep a seat when they extended the original invitation. Everyone goes into an interview with deficiencies, and it's up to them to be able to explain the deficiency to the satisfaction of the interviewer. If someone has a merely okay interview, it still might not address their deficiencies in the mind of the interviewer. Ohio State makes acceptance decisions the same day as the Interview, so the last impression of the interview does make an incredible impact.

there, fixed it between what supposedly happened at both A&M and OSU this year, it shows you there are other factors that come into play in deciding how likely you'll be admitted s/p interview. so in line with what Nick has been saying, sometimes there are simply too many well/over-qualified applicants. take everything with a grain of salt.

and with what Lizzy said, yeah, a person with whom i went to school was granted a courtesy interview (someone "made a call"). it wasn't late in the season, and the applicant was able to snag an acceptance. it happens. that's the way the world works. moral of the story is that you have to find someone to make that phonecall on your behalf jk. kind of.

 

[NYBills987]

I agree with what NickNaylor said here.. You have 850 people being interviewed at some of these places for ~130 spots (in a bigger class). Do you really think that over 600 of the interviewers lose their spot? As you meet the applicants at your interview, and they all talk about how their interviews went, you will see that they are all incredibly qualified. I would say maybe 1 out of every 10-15 applicants actually had an interview they would qualify as bad (and that was pretty constant throughout the range of schools I interviewed at). The interviews can really help you out in a very small number of cases, but I feel like in the vast majority it is just a minor bonus. I don't know of any school that actually only considers your interview... most of them take the recommendations (usually good) and combine it with your whole file and then vote on you.

 

[gujuDoc]

If they offer you an interview, the spot is yours to lose. Not everyone is perfect, in spite of what you read here. People have deficiencies and the interview is a way to erase remaining doubt. It's worth noting that at some schools an interview means >50% chance of acceptance and at others the odds are much lower. I think Georgetown interviewed 5-10 times the number of offers back in the day, seems like a waste of everyone's time. They took pride in noting that at the interview, reminding everyone the odds were still against them. It rubbed me the wrong way. I had a great MCAT score but a bit below average grades from a highly regarded university, well rounded, etc. BUT my MCAT writing sample was horrible. Why? Who knows. It was one of the first questions I was asked about at every interview. I was articulate, pointed out several all essay upper level humanities A grades on my transcript and erased all doubt. If I was fumbling for words and didn't clearly answer the questions posed, I'm sure I would have gotten a stack of rejections instead. The interview is critical to acceptance, it is essentially everything by the time you're applying for a fellowship.
Killing the interview is critical.

I agree with everyone here. I too think that if u are interviewed they think you have something that makes them want to know more about u but if u blow the interview then its ur own fault u didn't get in regardless of ur grades or not. I was told at my UCF interview that everyone who reaches the interview starts out with an average score of 3 on a scale of 1-5 from each committee member. What you get as your final score will depend on u and what happens after u interview.

So if someone blows them away in an interview regardless of their GPA/MCAT, they could end up getting a higher chance of getting in then they may have prior to interview.

Think Pursuit of Happyness. The reason Chris Gardner was able to get his in was because he was able to express his powerful story to those who gave him his exit from poverty and in into the world that he sought to be a part of. You have to give some.

Ohio state also didn't accept a lot of people for a lot greater reason this year. They over accepted so many they had to offer many of the acceptees a chance for scholarship for 1 year if they deferred so they wouldn't go over their capacity. So a lot of waitlisted people stood little chance.

Also with regards to UCF, I was placed in the smack middle of the waitlist with a far lower ugrad GPA though great grad GPA. On the other hand, I know people with 3.67-3.8+ and high MCAT scores and tons of ECs who were put on the lower end of the waitlist. This could be because of something in their interview.

Lastly, in the initial review of the apps u may often see different people in the committee split up the apps so that only a few and not the whole committee does the initial review of a given subset of apps. so for instance if u have 14 people on the committee like at UCF, you may only have 1 or 2 people reviewing an applicant's file prior to interview to decide whether or not that person gets an interview. However, post interview u have the whole committee vote on the person. So it can go both ways when you take this into account. I don't know how UCF or Wayne did it but I know this is the case of how it works at some med schools. This is why they say a lot of whether you get an interview is dependent on who reads ur file that day, and therefore why a reapplicant could get an interview at a school one year but not the following year.

 

[gujuDoc]

I agree with what NickNaylor said here.. You have 850 people being interviewed at some of these places for ~130 spots (in a bigger class). Do you really think that over 600 of the interviewers lose their spot? As you meet the applicants at your interview, and they all talk about how their interviews went, you will see that they are all incredibly qualified. I would say maybe 1 out of every 10-15 applicants actually had an interview they would qualify as bad (and that was pretty constant throughout the range of schools I interviewed at). The interviews can really help you out in a very small number of cases, but I feel like in the vast majority it is just a minor bonus. I don't know of any school that actually only considers your interview... most of them take the recommendations (usually good) and combine it with your whole file and then vote on you.

You bring up a lot of good points. They do reconsider the whole file again and everyone in the committee votes on it as i said above.

Also another point is that schools try to accomodate a certain level of diversity looking for certain traits in the applicant so sometimes even if they like you say they have too many people with what you have and want someone of a different background with certain traits for diversity purposes, you may not get in because of such. I saw this year at UCF they were pulling people from different parts of the waitlist by moving around people some to a certain degree to accomodate wanting a certain level of diversity.

 

[gujuDoc]

Do not forget that at many medical schools the "Voting" members of the admissions committee are often not the same members that screen or offer interview invites. If they are, keep in mind that you still have to have a majority vote to get accepted. While one person feels you would be a good fit even with a low GPA, the majority may disagree (ie = rejection).
I have to agree with Nick, most people have a pretty solid interview. Most of the schools I interviewed at were very conversational and stress free. It seemed that they were just trying to get to know me.

Lastly, as far as Lizzy's comment on the 1%, what's the big deal? At least they don't hide it. Most of my secondaries asked if I had family that was faculty. Call it perks to the position. Besides, there is politics in everything. Even getting faculty positions have major politics behind them. My undergrad premed advisor was HORRIBLE/USELESS, I always wondered how she got the job?

my .02

This is what I was trying to say in my post but you said it more eloquently.

 

[nheit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was previously informed that sometimes adcoms will invite people to interview for "political reasons" beyond someone powerful talking to adcom members. Among these would be:

1) Someone with a high GPA and MCAT with a red flag in the application. Adcoms may invite this person to interview with no intention of acceptance, although this does give a chance for the applicant to give an explanation.

2) Powerful LOEs. Applicants could have an awesome LOE praising the applicant from either a prominent faculty of the medical school or parent institution. To avoid potentially insulting this person, adcoms might invite the applicant to interview with no intention of acceptance.

3) Private school with alumni parents. If an applicant has parents who regularly give money to the school, they may grant an interview with no intention of acceptance.

To sum things up, these examples all have a common theme: the use of granting an interview to avoid rejecting an applicant outright. Getting an interview followed by a rejection gives the applicant more a feeling that they were considered closely and always leaves some degree of uncertainty that something went wrong during the interview. To put it bluntly, granting an interview could be adcoms' way of coping out of handing out a swift rejection for whatever reason.

I'm not completely convinced that these happen often enough for it to even matter. It could be the small percentage as indicated in previous posts. I would like to think that interview spots are valued by adcoms enough as to keep these instances at a minimum.

 

[LizzyM]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was previously informed that sometimes adcoms will invite people to interview for "political reasons" beyond someone powerful talking to adcom members. Among these would be:

1) Someone with a high GPA and MCAT with a red flag in the application. Adcoms may invite this person to interview with no intention of acceptance, although this does give a chance for the applicant to give an explanation.

2) Powerful LOEs. Applicants could have an awesome LOE praising the applicant from either a prominent faculty of the medical school or parent institution. To avoid potentially insulting this person, adcoms might invite the applicant to interview with no intention of acceptance.

3) Private school with alumni parents. If an applicant has parents who regularly give money to the school, they may grant an interview with no intention of acceptance.

To sum things up, these examples all have a common theme: the use of granting an interview to avoid rejecting an applicant outright. Getting an interview followed by a rejection gives the applicant more a feeling that they were considered closely and always leaves some degree of uncertainty that something went wrong during the interview. To put it bluntly, granting an interview could be adcoms' way of coping out of handing out a swift rejection for whatever reason.

I'm not completely convinced that these happen often enough for it to even matter. It could be the small percentage as indicated in previous posts. I would like to think that interview spots are valued by adcoms enough as to keep these instances at a minimum.

Agree, except for the "red flag" applicants. If they are interviewed, it is with the understanding that a decent explanation for the situation will move them into the "offer" column.

If the applicant has some power behind them and has a half way decent application (MCAT > 25, gpa >3.2) and they impress the heck out of the blinded interviewers, then there might be an offer of admission. In most cases, the courtesy interview is extended as a courtesy with the expectation that the applicant will be denied admission or buried on the waitlist.

Keep in mind that many schools need to make 2 to 4 offers for every seat so they may interview 800 and make 360 offers to fill 120 seats. How many will come off the waitlist is always up in the air and there is great debate over whether it is better to outright reject applications and let people get on with their lives, or give them the (false) hope of the waitlist knowing that of the 440 on the list, 200 will have gotten in elsewhere and of the 240 left, it is highly unlikely that more than 40 will ever get off (and in some years, no one does).

 

[Law2Doc]

...
I have to agree with Nick, most people have a pretty solid interview.
....

not so much. Most people think they interview better than they actually do. I've interviewed people from an employers perspective and sometimes it takes a lot more work to have those relaxed conversational interviews with some people than others. Both types come out thinking they nailed the interview, but I certainly knew who was the one that actually had a better performance. In general folks who haven't done tons of interviewing won't have a Good sense of whether they interview well. Practicing interviewing with a faculty member or on videotape can be enlightening for some folks who otherwise make a lot of unfortunate, correctable blunders.

 

[pfaction]

I was going for the $ aspect. If interviews cost $, it's in the school's best interest to interview whoever they want.

 

[tartrate]

This just doesn't make sense. This would imply that a majority of the applicants that they interview somehow "blew it." I don't care what an admissions representative told you - I highly doubt that that's how it's actually done.

...There are simply too many qualified applicants for everyone to get an acceptance. Not everyone that gets rejected has to have a "deficiency." Some people just have more strengths.

Agree with this completely. You will find the notion of people having "deficiencies" overstated on SDN. Actually, it's more than overstated, it's rampant, and it's one aspect of admissions that lot of people have a misunderstanding of.

 

[gujuDoc]

Agree with this completely. You will find the notion of people having "deficiencies" overstated on SDN. Actually, it's more than overstated, it's rampant, and it's one aspect of admissions that lot of people have a misunderstanding of.

Or its that everyone has a deficiency to some extent. There's no such thing as a perfect applicant because every school has different ideas of what they want and one applicant may fit a particular school's mission while not fitting another school's mission.

And its easier when you get rejected to look at what those things are that are considered deficient by some school cuz that is what is seen as fixable then it is to just say there were too many applicants and I just had bad luck this time or maybe they didn't think I fit their mission statement.

 

[Narmerguy]

Agree with this completely. You will find the notion of people having "deficiencies" overstated on SDN. Actually, it's more than overstated, it's rampant, and it's one aspect of admissions that lot of people have a misunderstanding of.

Ah lucky for us we have you here to set us all straight.

 

[IlDestriero]

not so much. Most people think they interview better than they actually do. I've interviewed people from an employers perspective and sometimes it takes a lot more work to have those relaxed conversational interviews with some people than others. Both types come out thinking they nailed the interview, but I certainly knew who was the one that actually had a better performance. In general folks who haven't done tons of interviewing won't have a Good sense of whether they interview well. Practicing interviewing with a faculty member or on videotape can be enlightening for some folks who otherwise make a lot of unfortunate, correctable blunders.

You're absolutely correct. I interview physicians trying to join our practice, CRNAs, and fellowship applicants. There's a big difference between doing fine and blowing the interview away. Few destroy an interview, most do fine, and rarely someone flounders. People that kill the interview and impress the interviewers are remembered and they get the offers. Our applicants are heavily screened, if there is any doubt about your ability, you just get a rejection. Every few years there is a fantastic applicant that has a bad attitude, rude, condescending, arrogant, etc. No offer for them. Don't forget to be humble. If I don't like you, I don't want to work with you, not for a fellowship year, and certainly not as a partner.
I think most people misread my early post here BTW. I did NOT say that if you get an interview that you have a seat in the class. I said that if you get the interview that the spot is "yours to lose". If you destroy the interview, dazzle them with charm, respect, coherent well thought out answers, etc. you will most likely get an offer.
Big difference.
And as for deficiencies, everyone has weaknesses. Maybe a 3.6 is a weakness at that school, maybe you appear one dimensional, maybe your leadership roles that you are so proud of are actually quite weak compared to other applicants. I was the president of Habitat for Humanity at Harvard, vs. I started a HFH group at Harvard and we now have 100 members and growing, vs. I was the president of HFH for all of Boston in charge of 20 member groups, vs. I founded a charity as a senior in high school that has raised over $2M for HFH over 5 years, we now have programs in 5 cities. All are quite proud of their leadership, some are more impressive than others.
Sometimes you don't even realize where you are weak.

 

[Whatyousay]

And as for deficiencies, everyone has weaknesses. Maybe a 3.6 is a weakness at that school, maybe you appear one dimensional, maybe your leadership roles that you are so proud of are actually quite weak compared to other applicants. I was the president of Habitat for Humanity at Harvard, vs. I started a HFH group at Harvard and we now have 100 members and growing, vs. I was the president of HFH for all of Boston in charge of 20 member groups, vs. I founded a charity as a senior in high school that has raised over $2M for HFH over 5 years, we now have programs in 5 cities. All are quite proud of their leadership, some are more impressive than others.
Sometimes you don't even realize where you are weak.

Well, that will do a lot to calm the rampant neuroticism on SDN

 

[Ignatius M.D.]

Well, that will do a lot to calm the rampant neuroticism on SDN

I was definitely thinking this .

It worries me that even if I get an interview the result is already essentially decided because my stats are below average.