Do only 1/2 of interviewees get accepted at most schools?

[KaraKiz]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've heard many things about the interview process, basically, they like you, they want you, they just want to make sure you are not crazy, etc.

But, lets say for example, a school like UCSF, which accepts 50% of its interviewees, then about half of those matriculate. What happened with the other 50% of the interviewees? Doesnt this seem like a very high number of people to bother interviewing, only to reject them? Why not interview less people and reject only 30% - that seems more along the lines of rejecting just the crazies. Maybe this extreme pickiness is how they find the best students, but it kind of bothered me when I was there interviewing.. I would have felt better if I had better than a 50/50 chance. I kept imagining them flipping a coin... Heads we take her, tails we crush her dreams...

I know other schools will accept 2/3, which seems more reasonable. Anyone have any other figures or examples? Are most of the top-tier schools really picky like this? Or are 1/2 of the people they interview actually just plain nuts?

 

[NovemberWhiskey]

Plenty of schools (Yale, Mayo) take ~20% post interview. 50% is very good, the majority of schools are somewhere in the 33% range.

 

[Lolita624]

actually, it's much less than 1/2 at most schools..USCF is an anomaly in that they interview a very small number of applicants....at most top schools, it's closer to 1/4. The way I see it is this: after the interview, they dump the "crazies" and the people whose personalities just don't mesh with that school's vibe...then they're left with a group of potential candidates who could all be perfectly suited, which is a much larger group than they can actually admit. At this point is where it becomes totally random...they pick to balance out demographics, etc.

 

[Robizzle]

Why would schools want to do what you suggest? Interviewing students costs the school nothing, so why would they interview less people, and possibley miss out on a candidate with a great personality, just to be "nicer" and not mislead 50% of interviewees?

And your example is a poor representation of most medical schools. Schools usually interview X amount of people, and then accept ~30% of them. A great number are then placed on the waitlist, and the remainder, or the "crazy" people as you would say, are rejected -- this number is most likely not 50%. I thikn there are even some schools who don't reject anyone and waitlist everyone who's not accepted.

 

[bbabul01]

They def weed out the crazies. But I think there's more to it than that. We say crazies because it's an easy way to say it, but in truth, our interviewers are analyzing what we are saying, and comparing that to our application to figure out the whole person. You can only tell so much on paper, you really need to meet people.

 

[KaraKiz]

Why would schools want to do what you suggest? Interviewing students costs the school nothing, so why would they interview less people, and possibley miss out on a candidate with a great personality, just to be "nicer" and not mislead 50% of interviewees?

And your number is wrong. Schools usually interview X amount of people, and then accept ~30% of them. A great number are then placed on the waitlist, and the remainder, or the "crazy" people as you would say, are rejected -- this number is most likely not 50%. I thikn there are even some schools who don't reject anyone and waitlist everyone who's not accepted.

Ok I probably got the 2/3 acceptances backwards - It should have been 1/3 acceptances and 2/3 rejections. In which case my UCSF argument is moot.

My friend got waitlisted at Hopkins, who doesnt reject anyone. They just have two waitlists. 1 is an actual waitlist, like you might still get in. One is a "secondary waitlist" or something like that. Basically, instead of getting a letter telling you that you have been rejected, you just get placed on the secondary waitlist.

But I still want to know what other schools do. Do most take only 20 - 30%? Even state schools? I thought they were higher for some reason...

 

[Robizzle]

I don't have the MSAR in front of me, but most schools accept 20-30% initially, then ppl will start withdrawing due to acceptance at other schools, people will then get pulled off the waitlist, and the number will ultimately reach 50%.

When a school says they accept 50% of interviewees, it means immediate acceptances as well as ones pulled off the waitlist.

 

[KaraKiz]

They def weed out the crazies. But I think there's more to it than that. We say crazies because it's an easy way to say it, but in truth, our interviewers are analyzing what we are saying, and comparing that to our application to figure out the whole person. You can only tell so much on paper, you really need to meet people.

Yeah, I know its a way more complicated process, I dont actually believe that only "crazy" people get rejected, I just got tired of hearing that.. "Oh they just want to make sure that you're normal and everything.." Well, fine ok, so if I get rejected after an interview, that means I'm too weird for them or something? Mostly just venting, wasnt implying that we are all crazies or anything..

 

[airshad8]

Yeah, I know its a way more complicated process, I dont actually believe that only "crazy" people get rejected, I just got tired of hearing that.. "Oh they just want to make sure that you're normal and everything.." Well, fine ok, so if I get rejected after an interview, that means I'm too weird for them or something? Mostly just venting, wasnt implying that we are all crazies or anything..

How about state schools like UMass Worc...I don't mean to derail the thread but I am just curious if anyone knows anything about it...I sent in my application friday and got an invite two days later...I have a feeling it was automatic or something, and they do this to everyone? I don't know...

Are state schools percentages higher (besides UCs)?

 

[cubbbie]

Why would schools want to do what you suggest? Interviewing students costs the school nothing, so why would they interview less people, and possibley miss out on a candidate with a great personality, just to be "nicer" and not mislead 50% of interviewees?

Are you kidding?!? -- interviewing students is a HUGE cost of both time and money (more time) for these schools. Do you think the faculty enjoy spending 1 or 2 hours of their day with prospies? For a solid 6 months, the deans have to plan on spending 1 hour of their day catering to interviewees. Then come the flood of thank you and update letters and emails, and all the support staff required to make the process run smoothly. It's a huge comittment!

 

[KaraKiz]

Why would schools want to do what you suggest? Interviewing students costs the school nothing, so why would they interview less people, and possibley miss out on a candidate with a great personality, just to be "nicer" and not mislead 50% of interviewees?

Are you kidding?!? -- interviewing students is a HUGE cost of both time and money (more time) for these schools. Do you think the faculty enjoy spending 1 or 2 hours of their day with prospies? For a solid 6 months, the deans have to plan on spending 1 hour of their day catering to interviewees. Then come the flood of thank you and update letters and emails, and all the support staff required to make the process run smoothly. It's a huge comittment!

Hmmm.. Touche'e cubbbie...

 

[Robizzle]

Are you kidding?!? -- interviewing students is a HUGE cost of both time and money (more time) for these schools. Do you think the faculty enjoy spending 1 or 2 hours of their day with prospies? For a solid 6 months, the deans have to plan on spending 1 hour of their day catering to interviewees. Then come the flood of thank you and update letters and emails, and all the support staff required to make the process run smoothly. It's a huge comittment!

Compared to the hundreds of dollars applicants spend on applications, hotels and flights, these costs are obselete in my opinion. The Dean would have to work those 6 months regardless. The support staff needs to be there regardless. The interviewers are volunteers (to the best of my knowledge). Is the cost of making 5 extra sandwiches that siginficant?

IMO, the price the school pays for interviewing these extra applicants is completely worth it if it means getting the best students they possibley can. I'm just sayin, why interview 200 less students just to prevent applicants from getting "false hope."

 

[Chulito]

Tru dat. All that time and labor means huge labor costs (including loss of productivity for those who are not exclusively admissions employees). I've read instances of schools refining their interviewing process to save $100,000.00/year. But you're right, Robizzle, they clearly feel that it is worth the cost and effort to interview more applicants.

As far as state schools and their interviewing criteria, a lot of them do interview a high percentage of in-state students, and some interview all of them. I know that UWSOM interviews something like 85% of its in-state applicants depending only on a minimum MCAT/GPA calculation. They go on to accept only ~20-25% of those interviewed (I don't remember exactly), however, so the in-state acceptance rate is still not super high.

 

[moe_4eva]

How about state schools like UMass Worc...I don't mean to derail the thread but I am just curious if anyone knows anything about it...I sent in my application friday and got an invite two days later...I have a feeling it was automatic or something, and they do this to everyone? I don't know...

Are state schools percentages higher (besides UCs)?

Well, not that I know that all schools are like this, but one school I recently interviewed at (University of Utah where I'm a resident), only interviewed something like 470 applicants, with 102 being offered positions. Right there, that's 20%, not taking into account the number that will reject due to other acceptances, those that didn't interview well, and those who are less qualified than other qualified applicants (redundant, I know, but it's true). So I would assume that they probably accept ~25-35% of applicants interviewed who didn't completely screw up the interview (hopefully me 😀)

 

[morriske]

you should get the US News and World Report Premium edition. For each med school you are able to see how many applicants apply, how many are interviewed, how many are accepted and how many matriculate. They also break it down by IS/OOS and M/F. It costs $15.

I interviewed at 5 schools ranging from a 38% to 78% acceptance rate post interview. Keep in mind that the acceptance rate includes applicants coming off of the waitlist.

 

[Law2Doc]

Compared to the hundreds of dollars applicants spend on applications, hotels and flights, these costs are obselete in my opinion. The Dean would have to work those 6 months regardless. The support staff needs to be there regardless. The interviewers are volunteers (to the best of my knowledge). Is the cost of making 5 extra sandwiches that siginficant?

LOL, the time volunteered is not "free" to those donating it, nor to the school or hospital who otherwise "own" that person's time during the business day. All those clinicians, department heads, professors and the like serving on adcom are using time they would otherwise be practicing or working, not their free time. So we are talking time valued at several hundred dollars an hour for each interviewer/adcom member by the school or hospital if their time was used in other capacities. So no, it's probably the most significant cost of the process. No money changes hands for it, but somebody eats the cost of all these people's business day time.

 

[Law2Doc]

They def weed out the crazies. But I think there's more to it than that. We say crazies because it's an easy way to say it, but in truth, our interviewers are analyzing what we are saying, and comparing that to our application to figure out the whole person. You can only tell so much on paper, you really need to meet people.

Agreed. Crazies are an insiginifant percentage of the applicant pool, and can usually be weeded out by the paper portions of the application. The interview actually is heavilly weighted at many places, and helps the schools decide who would be a good fit. Do not treat the interview as a mere formality -- it really can make the difference of whether you get in or don't get into med school. Practice.

 

[airshad8]

Agreed. Crazies are an insiginifant percentage of the applicant pool, and can usually be weeded out by the paper portions of the application. The interview actually is heavilly weighted at many places, and helps the schools decide who would be a good fit. Do not treat the interview as a mere formality -- it really can make the difference of whether you get in or don't get into med school. Practice.

What exactly is a crazy...i mean i am just curious...is it someone who stabs the interviewer with an ice-pick? is it someone who sweats profusely during the interview and is super nervous? is it someone who hints at being a serial killer? all this crazy talk is starting to make me wonder if i'll send adcom the wrong message during an interviewer....so what would you say to watch out for?

 

[Chulito]

I would definitely advise against bringing an icepick with you to the interview. If you must, keep it in the pocket of your suit jacket.

 

[alwaysaangel]

What exactly is a crazy...i mean i am just curious...is it someone who stabs the interviewer with an ice-pick? is it someone who sweats profusely during the interview and is super nervous? is it someone who hints at being a serial killer? all this crazy talk is starting to make me wonder if i'll send adcom the wrong message during an interviewer....so what would you say to watch out for?

I would say "crazy" encompasses a lot of no-nos:

1) Acting like you're better than the school you're interviewing at or the people who are interviewing you or the other applicants (I'd say this is the biggest one that kills people - the number of pre-meds who can't hide their (often unfounded) arrogance is shocking.

2) Not having a good answer to "Why an MD" (bad answers include: My parents were doctors, my parents told me to, I want to be rich, I want to help people, and I like playing with sharp objects)

3) Not having a good answer to "Why this school?" (Bad answers include: You're the only school in California that hasn't rejected me yet, because I want to go to medical school - where I go doesn't matter, because my parents told me to, and because I know I can get in since my stats are way higher than your averages).

4) Badmouthing the school in front of office staff

5) Not acting/dressing professionally.

6) Actually acting insane/admitting your history of schitzophrenia.

7) Throwing your tie over your shoulder during lunch (Sorry couldn't resist)

So really its not so much "Crazy" as it is stupid and bad personality.

 

[airshad8]

I would say "crazy" encompasses a lot of no-nos:

1) Acting like you're better than the school you're interviewing at or the people who are interviewing you or the other applicants (I'd say this is the biggest one that kills people - the number of pre-meds who can't hide their (often unfounded) arrogance is shocking.

2) Not having a good answer to "Why an MD" (bad answers include: My parents were doctors, my parents told me to, I want to be rich, I want to help people, and I like playing with sharp objects)

3) Not having a good answer to "Why this school?" (Bad answers include: You're the only school in California that hasn't rejected me yet, because I want to go to medical school - where I go doesn't matter, because my parents told me to, and because I know I can get in since my stats are way higher than your averages).

4) Badmouthing the school in front of office staff

5) Not acting/dressing professionally.

6) Actually acting insane/admitting your history of schitzophrenia.

7) Throwing your tie over your shoulder during lunch (Sorry couldn't resist)

So really its not so much "Crazy" as it is stupid and bad personality.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I don't demonstrate any of those things on the list and I plan on preparing well thought out answers for the questions asked so hopefully I'll be ok.


And no...Chulito, i don't plan on bringing an ice pick.😛

 

[KaraKiz]

I would say "crazy" encompasses a lot of no-nos:....

7) Throwing your tie over your shoulder during lunch (Sorry couldn't resist)

So really its not so much "Crazy" as it is stupid and bad personality.

OUCH! Not that I wear ties to my interviews, but damn girl, that was cold...

 

[Khanal007]

hmmm...in one interview, the interviewer asked me why I wasn't nervous, and I said "the only reason I'm not too nervous is because I'm so sure this is what I want to do with my life, I know I'll make it happen somehow." I think I stressed earlier in the interview that I really liked the school, etc. But I've been repeatedly thinking about that answer as being a little too cocky. However, the interviewer at the end while shaking my hand said "you did very well". It's hard to read if that's something they say to everyone or what. Also, I still haven't heard from this school.

 

[alwaysaangel]

OUCH! Not that I wear ties to my interviews, but damn girl, that was cold...

😀 Sorry - but that thread was one of the most hilarious on these boards in quite a while.

 

[Law2Doc]

What exactly is a crazy...i mean i am just curious...is it someone who stabs the interviewer with an ice-pick? is it someone who sweats profusely during the interview and is super nervous? is it someone who hints at being a serial killer? all this crazy talk is starting to make me wonder if i'll send adcom the wrong message during an interviewer....so what would you say to watch out for?

I think you missed my point. I was saying nearly none of the applicant pool are certifiable and so the interview is NOT just for the purpose of screening for them. There is some notion on SDN that if you just act normal the interview is a good one. I'm saying that's probably not the case -- normal folks can be differentiated between.

 

[Khanal007]

I think you missed my point. I was saying nearly none of the applicant pool are certifiable and so the interview is NOT just for the purpose of screening for them. There is some notion on SDN that if you just act normal the interview is a good one. I'm saying that's probably not the case -- normal folks can be differentiated between.

while true, this isn't comforting because the criteria for screening between normal people seems to be vague, minute, and varied from school to school.

 

[Law2Doc]

while true, this isn't comforting because the criteria for screening between normal people seems to be vague, minute, and varied from school to school.

Such is life in the land of subjective "good fit" analysis. Each school has its criteria, but they aren't going to be the same, just what works for them in creating the kind of class they decide they want.

 

[airshad8]

I think you missed my point. I was saying nearly none of the applicant pool are certifiable and so the interview is NOT just for the purpose of screening for them. There is some notion on SDN that if you just act normal the interview is a good one. I'm saying that's probably not the case -- normal folks can be differentiated between.

no no i understood your point, i was just curious off topic what people kept referring to as crazy. that's all.

 

[KaraKiz]

while true, this isn't comforting because the criteria for screening between normal people seems to be vague, minute, and varied from school to school.

YES! EXACTLY! Thats what I've been so frustrated about.. This is exactly why when ppl post "What are my chances of getting into medical school with a 3.5 GPA and a 30 MCAT?" I read these questions and I can hear the internal self-destruct mechanism initiate in my brain... I have no idea what MY chances are in this process.. its like arbitrarily ordered chaos...

 

[alwaysaangel]

YES! EXACTLY! Thats what I've been so frustrated about.. This is exactly why when ppl post "What are my chances of getting into medical school with a 3.5 GPA and a 30 MCAT?" I read these questions and I can hear the internal self-destruct mechanism initiate in my brain... I have no idea what MY chances are in this process.. its like arbitrarily ordered chaos...

See you need to get over that.

Walk into your interviews KNOWING that you will make an incredible doctor, and an awesome fit for their school.

Be friendly and casual if it suits the interviewer.

You'll be fine. Just remember the interview is not the end of the world - its not going to kill you if you don't get accepted, and stressing doesn't help.

One really great way to practice is to talk to strangers in the airport/on the plane on the way to the interview. Because seriously in my experience half the conversations I have with strangers are exactly like my interviews. Friendly chatting, and most strangers ask me "Why a doctor?" "Where do you want to go?" "What specialty are you thinking about?"

I kid you not - its the most amazing, cheap practice you can get.

 

[KaraKiz]

Haha I know - we all would love to read a step-by-step manual on how to get into the medical school of your choice, so we can stop second-guessing ourselves. I don't know anyone else applying, so when I express concern about it to friends, they say "Oh no medical school is going to reject someone with your qualifications.." And it gets me thinking.. "Actually, they already have, and they certainly won't be the last ones, and thank you so much for bringing up such a painful topic." Boo.

I know you can only be yourself and hope thats what they are looking for.. but at the same time, you still have to turn your negatives into positives and sell yourself. Its a delicate balance, and with acceptances rolling out and me not having heard back from over half of the schools I applied to..

complain complain complain... i know.. sorry. I am going to concentrate on being thankful for receiving two interviews, when there are people still waiting for #1.