Do stats have less of an impact once offered an interview?

[dscorcher]

I have been so super lucky and have already been offered a couple of interviews!
My fear is maybe they made some kind of mistake, or was being too agreeable when offering, because my MCAT score and GPA are both fairly low (about 10% mark for all schools, on both MCAT and gpa).

Anyways, aside those fears, I was wondering if the interview invites indicate that the adcom of that school believes you are academically ready ie the impact of the interview is weighed higher or if the interview is just one small part of the overall package

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NoDakDok]

Generally, they do have less of an impact post-interview invite.

If you have received an interview the admissions committee has deemed you academically competent. Not to say that your academics don't matter after that (they certainly do), and you may have to explain particularly poor academic performance in the interview, but they wouldn't interview you if they didn't think you could handle the curriculum.

As always, different schools weigh things differently. Some schools might favor high-stat applicants whereas others may weigh interviews more heavily.

 

[Goro]

At my school, we will wait list people if their starts are borderline; other schols may have issues with disparate stats (like high MCAT/low GPA).

But overall, stats get you to the door. The whole packet gets you in the door.

Been super lucky and have already been offered a couple of interviews!
My fear is maybe they made some kind of mistake, or was being too agreeable when offering, because my MCAT score and GPA are both fairly low (about ~10% mark for all schools, on both MCAT and gpa).

Anyways, aside those fears, I was wondering if the interview invites indicate that the adcom of that school believes you are academically ready ie the impact of the interview is weighed higher or if the interview is just one small part of the overall package

 

[mehc012]

@LizzyM has a staircase analogy which she tends to use for this:

You are new here so you may not have seen my analogy of the staircase. Your grades and scores (combined, if you will, with the formula GPA(10)+MCAT) along with your ECs, essays and LORs place you in one of many broad ranked categories. You can think of them as stairs on a wide staircase. (In other words, many of you can be on the same stair.) If a school selects you for interview, in all likelihood you are high enough on the stairs to be admitted or there is the potential that a good interview could boost you up enough to garner admission. That said, someone with a 4.0/40 and an amazing dossier of activities will start out on a higher stair and be more likely to be admitted if your interviews are about the same. Or, the other applicant could bomb the interview and move far down the staircase while you, with a great interview, move up. If a school looks at an applicant and says, "Even with a great interview, we couldn't possibly admit someone with an undergrad gpa of x.xx", then the school is doing you a disservice by inviting you to interview. If you get an interview, it should be a signal that you are "good enough" on paper and the next step is to determine if you are as good (or even better) in person.

1. It isn't a ladder rung which suggests that only one person can occupy each rung. It is a wide staircase with many people on each stair.

My school doesn't really use numbers in this way but let me give you an example that roughly approximates what happens at one school.

Imagine a huge staircase with numbered stairs. On interview day, the applicants are on the stair that corresponds to their LizzyM score. An applicant that is very impressive on interview might be moved up one stair or more. Most applicants are going to remain where they are.. not going up or down. Some student who do or say something absolutely terrible might be sent down 10 steps, or more. In some cases, an applicant that didn't impress the interviewers but wasn't horrible might go down a step or three.

Now where is everyone? Starting at the top of the staircase, we admit students until we max out the number we can safely admit (without becoming oversubscribed). Obviously, scores and grades still matter but those who are great on interview can jump ahead and those who bomb will be demoted to the bottom of the waitlist or outright rejected.

I've answered this before but here goes: It does vary by school. Imagine that people are standing on a huge staircase with those who have the highest stats and the most remarkable experiences at the top stair and downward to the least among those who are interviewed. After the interview, the applicants can keep their place on their original stair, go up a step or two or go down a step or many steps. In most cases, the people with the higest stats are still at the top but some are sent to the bottom step and some people move up or down according to their performance.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I once heard that an interview means that you're at least 70% there. But regardless, it's in your best interest to be confident.

 

[mehc012]

I once heard that an interview means that you're at least 70% there. But regardless, it's in your best interest to be confident.

In Goro's recent interview thread, he revealed that for his school, ~75% of interviewees got acceptances and that ~30-40% of those matriculated.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

In Goro's recent interview thread, he revealed that for his school, ~75% of interviewees got acceptances and that ~30-40% of those matriculated.

So I wasn't too off. (I just skimmed his
post and bookmarked it for later). I did catch the Plan B part (which for me is a 3rd base coach for an MLB team ).

Anyway, please update me when you're at least 70% to UCSF. I still want to know how you feel about the Bay at that point.

 

[mehc012]

So I wasn't too off. (I just skimmed his
post and bookmarked it for later). I did catch the Plan B part (which for me is a 3rd base coach for an MLB team ).

Anyway, please update me when you're at least 70% to UCSF. I still want to know how you feel about the Bay at that point.

Right, I was backing you up!
But yeah, I probably won't even apply to UCSF...way outside my stats range.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Right, I was backing you up!
But yeah, I probably won't even apply to UCSF...way outside my stats range.

Not your recent stats range, and most likely, your MCAT will meet (or exceed) their standards. Be confident!!

 

[hoihaie]

i feel like my interview was given because of two of my LoR writer's status at that school hah.. scared that i was only invited bc of that and won't have any chances iwth my low stats post interview

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

i feel like my interview was given because of two of my LoR writer's status at that school hah.. scared that i was only invited bc of that and won't have any chances iwth my low stats post interview

You're practically there!! Wow them with your commitment and personality! You have to act like you belong there!

 

[soccerusa]

I think for a lot of allopathic schools the acceptance rate post interview is closer to 40-50%. I have pulled all the numbers for the schools I am applying to and it ranges from approx 65% at places like northwestern to 25% at Harvard. Most of the schools fall within the 40-50% range though. Hope this helps and good luck!

 

[godawg300]

I wonder if schools accept more candidates earlier than later for the rolling ones. Like if you interview in the first round it's like 80 percent but then 2 months in maybe 30-40.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Numbers, numbers, numbers, numbers, numbers... I wouldn't focus on numbers if I had an interview.

 

[NickNaylor]

I wonder if schools accept more candidates earlier than later for the rolling ones. Like if you interview in the first round it's like 80 percent but then 2 months in maybe 30-40.

Yes, this is pretty well known.

 

[godawg300]

Yes, this is pretty well known.

Yes, but I wonder if this has to do with the caliber of students or more to do with spots left?

 

[Bovary]

Yes, this is pretty well known.

Yes, but I wonder if this has to do with the caliber of students or more to do with spots left?

I second Godawg (and maybe NickNaylor knows something): Which direction is the causality?

Are earlier interviewees stronger candidates, and therefore more likely to be accepted?
Or, are earlier interviewees more likely to be accepted inherently because their app has more time for review?

To test: Will a subset of applicants who are offered a very early interview who elect to take a late-stage interview date be offered a significantly lower number of acceptances.

My guess: 80/20 split between "stronger applicant" / "more time" hypotheses.

 

[bionerd20]

Yes, this is pretty well known.

When schools say that they save seats open for each interview date to make it fair, does this still hold true? They technically do have seats open, but still a smaller percentage of applicants will be accepted after later interview dates? Thanks in advance

 

[godawg300]

If anyone has any knowledge in this area id be very curious to hear peoples opinions.

 

[Aerus]

If anyone has any knowledge in this area id be very curious to hear peoples opinions.

I'm confident that there are strong candidates throughout the app cycle. In the beginning, you have the neurotic strong applicants (and most likely to be accepted) who are cautious about the admissions process. Later in the cycle, you have overconfident strong applicants (who only have a moderate chance of acceptance) who think that all the top schools will just throw interview offers at them.

There would be no reason for SDN's "apply early" mantra if you didn't have a better chance at an interview and acceptance if you apply early on.

 

[Law2Doc]

Yes, but I wonder if this has to do with the caliber of students or more to do with spots left?

Spots -- it's a rolling process. Odds get worse as remaining seats are fewer.

Think of interview as the 800 LB gorilla. It's the most important aspect of your application if you get to that point. Everyone they interview has a shot at getting in. No school is going to say -- this guy was pretty lackluster in the interview but we will take him on the strength of his numbers -- doesn't work that way -- you need the whole package. In every school, I mean every, there will be people who hit a home run in the interview and got spots over people with slightly better numbers, and people with great numbers who came off quiet and boring and fell our of contention. So practice for the interview -- what you have done prior to that point often only gets you to that point.

 

[LizzyM]

It is going to vary by school.

To get an interview, it helps to apply early. 100% of the interview slots are available to the first applicants reviewed. Apply a month later and maybe 30% of those interview slots are gone by the time your application is reviewed.

On the other hand, at least at my school, the proportion of admission offers made remains remarkably steady throughout the season. We could be overly generous early in the season but that might hurt us with strong candidates who would refuse to come in to interview "for the waitlist". Keep in mind, too, that there are so many strong applicants and so few interview slots (one slot for every 7-10 candidates) that we see no decline in quality of the interiewed applicants later in the season.

 

[NickNaylor]

Yes, but I wonder if this has to do with the caliber of students or more to do with spots left?

Probably both. The students that are on their game and get everything done ASAP are likely the same kind of people that are generally on the ball and well-prepared. It would be unusual to be a slacker throughout your undergrad career and then all of a sudden step it up for medical school admissions.

At my institution, acceptances are essentially handed out to applicants based on a composite score following discussion by the various admissions committees. Applicants are essentially "ranked" by their scores, and applicants with higher scores receive acceptances. As you might imagine, this opens up the opportunity for applicants to be "bumped" down the list as the applicant pool fills out. This is by no means a strict rule, but hopefully it gives you a sense of how the process works at some schools and why applying early is advantageous. In fact, I remember Michigan releasing something a few years ago that essentially said that an overwhelming number of the students that are ultimately accepted submitted their application prior to September (something in the 70-80% range). The acceptance rate for students that submitted their application in October or later was abysmal.

This matters less for non-rolling schools, but even then you can speculate generally based on when you receive your interview invite. If you're complete in August and receive an interview invite early on, then you're likely a competitive applicant and stand a reasonable chance at getting accepted. If, on the other hand, you're complete in August but don't get an interview until much later on in the cycle (e.g., December), then you might guess that you're not as competitive - at least not competitive enough for the school to grant you an interview right away. By no means are you interviewing for the waitlist, but it gives you an idea of where you land generally on the "competitiveness" spectrum.

As far as getting interviews later on in the cycle and whether that means you have a real shot at getting accepted or not, my guess is that this is school-dependent. At my institution, enough slots are held until the interview season to ensure that all applicants are genuinely interviewing to be accepted. The number of slots and all that stuff is based on historical data; taken over years, the admissions office has a pretty good idea of how many applicants are likely to be strong and earn an acceptance, thus it isn't difficult to plan for that accordingly. I think it's pretty weak for a school to have students spend the time and money needed to come out and interview for what is effectively a spot on the waitlist, but it really wouldn't surprise me if that happened at the schools that interview large numbers of applicants and/or have many, many applicants (e.g., Georgetown, BU, etc.). However, I really don't know for sure, and, again, it likely varies from school to school.