Does anyone ever have bad interviews?

[RDood]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So I just wrapped up my 3rd interview today, this time at the University of Michigan. After the interview and talking to other applicants, I would have to say that most people leave these interviews (myself included) thinking "boy, that went great, the interviewer seemed really interested in me." Also, it doesn't help when they compliment you and your application during the interview. But, suddenly today I was thinking that this truly can't be, as people get obviously get rejected post-interview. Am I just paranoid or do I and everyone else have an inflated sense of how interviews go? How do we objectively evaluate our interviews? Does anyone ever have a bad experience in an interview, or leave one thinking they blew it?

 

[asunshine]

i had that feeling today too. i thought i did well enough (got a compliment!), but i'm sure everyone else felt that, too. i don't think there's any way to objectively evaluate your interview. get the US news and world report ($15), they list how many people got interviews and how many were accepted for most schools.

i think a lot of the rejected post-interview is common at top-tier schools, and for rolling schools late in the game. and for out of staters. a lot depends on budget/quotas/etc, i think, but i may be wrong.

i'm sure there are some horrible interviews to be had.

 

[Wannabemed]

Dude, you and the other early/mid september interviewees are auto-interview invitees, so obviously your GPA/MCATs are very very impressive. You're not the typical interviewee at Michigan...my bet is that you'll get in.

 

[Law2Doc]

So I just wrapped up my 3rd interview today, this time at the University of Michigan. After the interview and talking to other applicants, I would have to say that most people leave these interviews (myself included) thinking "boy, that went great, the interviewer seemed really interested in me." Also, it doesn't help when they compliment you and your application during the interview. But, suddenly today I was thinking that this truly can't be, as people get obviously get rejected post-interview. Am I just paranoid or do I and everyone else have an inflated sense of how interviews go? How do we objectively evaluate our interviews? Does anyone ever have a bad experience in an interview, or leave one thinking they blew it?

If you haven't had a lot of experience interviewing before this process, you are going to have no decent gauge of what constitutes a good interview. So yes, lots of people will have overinflated views of how it went. And since only a fraction of all interviewees get acceptances (often a quarter to a half at some places), there will be many more "good" interviews than spots, so sometimes "good" isn't going to be "good" enough. Make sure you practice and hone this skill, and do what you can to sell yourself. Don't be passive and assume that if you just don't screw up, or act crazy, you are fine -- in most cases much more than this is required.

 

[ADeadLois]

If you haven't had a lot of experience interviewing before this process, you are going to have no decent gauge of what constitutes a good interview. So yes, lots of people will have overinflated views of how it went. And since only a fraction of all interviewees get acceptances (often a quarter to a half at some places), there will be many more "good" interviews than spots, so sometimes "good" isn't going to be "good" enough. Make sure you practice and hone this skill, and do what you can to sell yourself. Don't be passive and assume that if you just don't screw up, or act crazy, you are fine -- in most cases much more than this is required.

Agreed. From my experience as a interviewer, a lot of the people who have an inflated view of how their interview went typically came across as horrendously arrogant. It's ok to think you did well, but the people who go nuts bragging about how well their interview went probably came across as pompous.

 

[RDood]

Agreed. From my experience as a interviewer, a lot of the people who have an inflated view of how their interview went typically came across as horrendously arrogant. It's ok to think you did well, but the people who go nuts bragging about how well their interview went probably came across as pompous.

Heh, not helping with my feelings of paranoia. I suppose when I think an interview went well, I think that the interviewer seemed quite interested, and in many cases we "clicked." I think student interviewers are some of the hardest to guage too because they are usually so friendly, enthusiastic, and energetic.

 

[asunshine]

Heh, not helping with my feelings of paranoia.

that makes two of us!

 

[agr285]

I don't think you have to worry too much. Schools give out more acceptances than the actual number of people who matriculate. I'm sure a lot of the declined offers are from early interviewees who get multiple offers from schools. I don't think its that unreasonable to think that a lot of you guys did interview well. Hope that makes u feel better.

 

[lilnoelle]

People can have bad interviews. I had a terrible one at Mizzou last year and a great one at KU... it was the difference of outright rejection at my state school and acceptance as OOS. I've heard others mention their terrible interviews as reason they didn't get in, so obviously it happens. There is probably a trend to not admit that the interview went poorly until getting a rejection. Even though I knew my interview went poorly, I still held onto a little bit of hope that it didn't go as bad as I thought until getting the rejection.
I'm quite certain that individual's also "inflate" how well their interview went or.... the interview might have went well because the interviewer is genuinely a nice person who gets a long with almost everyone they meet, in this situation, the interviewer who has seen many applicants will still have a way of guaging who actually is the best fit for the school.

 

[Law2Doc]

the interview might have went well because the interviewer is genuinely a nice person who gets a long with almost everyone they meet, in this situation, the interviewer who has seen many applicants will still have a way of guaging who actually is the best fit for the school.

That's a good point (give or take the grammar🙂 ) -- most of the clinicians who volunteer to help out with admissions care about their school and genuinely like talking to students and prospectives. So they are often a self selected, talkative, social, upbeat group. All conversations with such people seem like good ones. But they will be like that with everyone, while all the while ranking you against others they have seen, in terms of how you handled yourself, your maturity, and whether they think you will be a "good fit" with the diverse class the adcoms are seeking to put together. So you have to try and "wow" them. Arrogant is bad. Passive is bad. Something in between where you can have a pleasant conversation and still sell yourself is ideal.

 

[mintendo]

i had that feeling today too. i thought i did well enough (got a compliment!), but i'm sure everyone else felt that, too. i don't think there's any way to objectively evaluate your interview. get the US news and world report ($15), they list how many people got interviews and how many were accepted for most schools.

i think a lot of the rejected post-interview is common at top-tier schools, and for rolling schools late in the game. and for out of staters. a lot depends on budget/quotas/etc, i think, but i may be wrong.

i'm sure there are some horrible interviews to be had.

I ain't got no $15 🙂 ...anyone have this info available?😀 😀

 

[gujuDoc]

Two things:

Yes there is such a thing as bad interview experience. Search interview feedback or SDN people's experiences in various threads here.

Secondly, interview isn't the only determining factor of whether you get in. Interviews are just another factor in the decision but not what makes them say yes or no unless you royally screw up. So you can have a good interview and still get rejected or a slightly less great interview and still get in.

 

[Law2Doc]

Secondly, interview isn't the only determining factor of whether you get in. Interviews are just another factor in the decision but not what makes them say yes or no unless you royally screw up. So you can have a good interview and still get rejected or a slightly less great interview and still get in.

In my opinion this isn't really the best way to look at it. The interview is not just another factor. It is the biggest factor. All the other stuff was just the fuel necessary to get you to the interview stage. But once you get to that stage, you really have to look at the interview as the only game in town. At some schools, where everyone who gets to this stage is treated equal and deemed acceptable (and all prior stats are no longer looked at), it actually IS the only game in town. A bad interview can send you straight to the waitlist while a good interview can get you in. Sure, you can have a "good" interview and still get rejected but that is usually because others had "better" interviews.

 

[Centinel]

The most recent info I have is from 2004, when most of the top 20 USNews schools (sorry, these are all I've got) ended up accepting 35%+/-10% of their interviewees. Hopkins and Harvard were almost dead on at 35%.

Some schools accepted below that 20 point range (Yale - 23%; Duke - 24%; Columbia - 24%) but more accepted above that range (Michigan - 60%; UCSD - 53%; USC - 70%; Pitt - 52%).

 

[agr285]

In my opinion this isn't really the best way to look at it. The interview is not just another factor. It is the biggest factor. All the other stuff was just the fuel necessary to get you to the interview stage. But once you get to that stage, you really have to look at the interview as the only game in town. At some schools, where everyone who gets to this stage is treated equal and deemed acceptable (and all prior stats are no longer looked at), it actually IS the only game in town. A bad interview can send you straight to the waitlist while a good interview can get you in. Sure, you can have a "good" interview and still get rejected but that is usually because others had "better" interviews.

I don't agree that MOST schools only care about the interview once its given. That would discriminate against people who would make excellent doctors but happen to be a little more reserved and quiet. If what you say is true, quiet people who are not good public speakers would NEVER get into medical school and obviously they do. You don't need to be a great public speaker or great interviewee to be a good doctor. The medical schools want the most taleneted, diverse class that fits their program, NOT just people who happen to give a great interview on one isolated day. The person who had a good interview, could have just as easily had an average one had they been interviewed by a different person. Interviewers, while mostly nice, have different opinions and personalities. They ask different quesions that could elicit different responses from an interviewee. There is a certain element of randomness to it, and adcoms know that. Furthermore, to say that everyone who gets the interview is the same is ludicrous. There are non-traditional applicants who have far different experiences from the typical pre-meds. In addition, it's possible someon with a 3.8/39 could have applied late and interivew on the same day with people who are 3.5/31. To say that the adcoms views them as identical is nuts. I'm sure there are some schools that only care about the interview, but there are plenty that look at the whole picture. So if you have an average interview, you can still get in. Being paranoid about the importance of the interview is only going to make you more nervous and more likely to screw up. The interview day is stressful enough as it is, don't make it worse by psyching yourself out. If you constantly worry about how the interviewer is evaluating each answer you give, then you're going to second guess all your answers and make yourself miserable. Over preparing for interviews also isn't that helpful because interviews are dynamic. The interviewers will respond to things you say and pose follow up quesions that you probably didn't prepare for. Know your application, know the school, do your best and leave the rest in God's hands. Personally, I think there were things in my interviews that my interviewers agreed with and somethings that they didn't quite respond to. I thought my interviews were average, but not terrible. I still think I have a decent shot of getting an acceptance. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed.

 

[Law2Doc]

I don't agree that MOST schools only care about the interview once its given. That would discriminate against people who would make excellent doctors but happen to be a little more reserved and quiet.

I didn't say most schools. However people who aren't good interviewees ARE discriminated against by this process. Sorry but it's true. If you cannot impress someone in an interview your odds of getting into med school are simply not as good as someone who can. Time to come out of that shell.

 

[mintendo]

The most recent info I have is from 2004, when most of the top 20 USNews schools (sorry, these are all I've got) ended up accepting 35%+/-10% of their interviewees. Hopkins and Harvard were almost dead on at 35%.

Some schools accepted below that 20 point range (Yale - 23%; Duke - 24%; Columbia - 24%) but more accepted above that range (Michigan - 60%; UCSD - 53%; USC - 70%; Pitt - 52%).

Thanks! Those numbers seem really high BTW. Not that I'm complaining.👍

 

[baylormed]

I didn't say most schools. However people who aren't good interviewees ARE discriminated against by this process. Sorry but it's true. If you cannot impress someone in an interview your odds of getting into med school are simply not as good as someone who can. Time to come out of that shell.

I've met quite a few doctors with poor social skills. One of the ones I met was a geriatrician who spoke sooooooooo softly nobody, not even the nurses, could ever understand what he was saying (he wasn't old, by the way, 40's or early 50's). When I went into consultations with him (I was an MA) many the patients would ask him to repeat himself. Same with his social skills, they were lacking in many areas.

People like this, who are naturally shy/introverts, rarely make good interviewees. Yet somehow they still get into medical schools.

I'm sure interviewers are primarily intelligent human beings (most of them are)who will look behind your pose during the interview. Sometimes being too friendly/confident can come across as arrogant, the trick is in the interviewer being sharp enough to detect deceit and to use their best instincts when evaluating interviewees.

 

[Law2Doc]

I've met quite a few doctors with poor social skills. One of the ones I met was a geriatrician who spoke sooooooooo softly nobody, not even the nurses, could ever understand what he was saying (he wasn't old, by the way, 40's or early 50's). When I went into consultations with him (I was an MA) many the patients would ask him to repeat himself. Same with his social skills, they were lacking in many areas.

People like this, who are naturally shy/introverts, rarely make good interviewees. Yet somehow they still get into medical schools.

I'm sure interviewers are primarily intelligent human beings (most of them are)who will look behind your pose during the interview. Sometimes being too friendly/confident can come across as arrogant, the trick is in the interviewer being sharp enough to detect deceit and to use their best instincts when evaluating interviewees.

Lots of shy folks can pull it together for an hour. That's how you get in. If you make the interviewer have to work too hard for an impression, or are too passive, you are SOL.

 

[baylormed]

Lots of shy folks can pull it together for an hour. That's how you get in. If you make the interviewer have to work too hard for an impression, or are too passive, you are SOL.

I'm a shy/introvert myself. Let me tell you it's quite hard to "pull it off" even for an hour. Plus pretending to be something you are not might just come across as fake and backfire at you.

You are assuming things you don't know. Sure, let's assume all shy doctors changed their personality for an hour in order to get into medical school, in order to support our preconceived notions....

One NEED NOT be an extrovert in order to be a doctor/get into medical school. There's much more to it.

 

[lilnoelle]

That's a good point (give or take the grammar🙂 )

Yeah... writing isn't my forte..😳 oh well.

 

[lilnoelle]

I'm a shy/introvert myself. Let me tell you it's quite hard to "pull it off" even for an hour. Plus pretending to be something you are not might just come across as fake and backfire at you.

You are assuming things you don't know. Sure, let's assume all shy doctors changed their personality for an hour in order to get into medical school, in order to support our preconceived notions....

One NEED NOT be an extrovert in order to be a doctor/get into medical school. There's much more to it.

An individual most definitely doesn't need to be an extrovert. I think about half of our class is introverted. However, there is a huge difference found in levels of extroversion/introversion and I think its important for individuals of all personality types to be flexible and able to adapt to a variety of situations. We have to deal with people as physicians and so they're going to be looking at how well you do so in your interview. That doesn't mean pretending to be an extrovert, but it does mean doing your best to be comfortable around people.

 

[baylormed]

An individual most definitely doesn't need to be an extrovert. I think about half of our class is introverted. However, there is a huge difference found in levels of extroversion/introversion and I think its important for individuals of all personality types to be flexible and able to adapt to a variety of situations. We have to deal with people as physicians and so they're going to be looking at how well you do so in your interview. That doesn't mean pretending to be an extrovert, but it does mean doing your best to be comfortable around people.

Sure, being able to treat people is implied. Unless of course, you are going for pathology/radiology/research medicine, in which case you don't need to.

But also; shy and introvert =/= antisocial.

We're just not too loud or tend to draw attention to ourselves. It doesn't mean we are not comfortable around people. 😍

 

[lilnoelle]

Sure, being able to treat people is implied. Unless of course, you are going for pathology/radiology/research medicine, in which case you don't need to.

But also; shy and introvert =/= antisocial.

We're just not too loud or tend to draw attention to ourselves. It doesn't mean we are not comfortable around people. 😍

I know, I'm slightly introverted myself, but not nearly as introverted as my husband, who does border on antisocial (except with family). I didn't feel the fact that I'm slightly introverted affected my interviewing ability because generally an interview is between an applicant and an interviewer, occasionally more than one. I didn't have to compete with anyone else more vivacious to convey who I am. I didn't feel it was an issue, but then again, I'm sort of in the central part of the spectrum between introversion and extroversion.
The reason my first interview went poorly had more to do with my niavete and just that the interviewer didn't really like my conservative viewpoint... the interview didn't necessarily go bad because of our disagreement, but rather because I didn't know what to do with the rest of the interview. I didn't handle the situation well, and the whole interview was bad.
The second interview went well because I feel I was able to convey why I would be an asset to the school/bring in diversity to the class. I also had realized I wanted to work in rural primary care in between the two interviews, which is very attractive to midwestern med schools.

 

[gujuDoc]

In my opinion this isn't really the best way to look at it. The interview is not just another factor. It is the biggest factor. All the other stuff was just the fuel necessary to get you to the interview stage. But once you get to that stage, you really have to look at the interview as the only game in town. At some schools, where everyone who gets to this stage is treated equal and deemed acceptable (and all prior stats are no longer looked at), it actually IS the only game in town. A bad interview can send you straight to the waitlist while a good interview can get you in. Sure, you can have a "good" interview and still get rejected but that is usually because others had "better" interviews.

I disagree. Most of my friends who applied and got in have told me that the interview only really affects you if you've done absolutely horrible in it.

But I've had many many friends that had great interviews at most of their schools and some pretty not so go interviews and ended up getting accepted where their interviews were sub par and rejected from schools whee their interview was extremely great.

They still look at the rest of your profile again before they make the final decision. That's my 2 cents based on my friends who applied and interviewed at schools ranging from HMS and other top 10 or 20 schools to state schoolls.

 

[Law2Doc]

I disagree. Most of my friends who applied and got in have told me that the interview only really affects you if you've done absolutely horrible in it.

But I've had many many friends that had great interviews at most of their schools and some pretty not so go interviews and ended up getting accepted where their interviews were sub par and rejected from schools whee their interview was extremely great.

They still look at the rest of your profile again before they make the final decision. That's my 2 cents based on my friends who applied and interviewed at schools ranging from HMS and other top 10 or 20 schools to state schoolls.

I know a few folks who were candidly told subsequently by interviewers (once they got into school) that they got in largely on the strength of their interview, and know quite a few folks who vaulted past others with objectively higher stats based most likely on their interview performance. And there are always a handful of folks on SDN who have stellar stats who never got past the interview stage, despite the interviews going "okay". It is your chance to impress, and if you get to that stage, the spot is yours to win or lose.

A number of schools will actually tell you that everyone who made it to the interview is now deemed equal and is deemed admissible -- hence the rest of your app only becomes relevant if you find yourself back on a waitlist.

It is SDN myth that folks with high stats will always get in even with lukewarm, but not horrible, interviews, or that interviews are just meant to weed out the psychos but otherwise don't matter. They do.

 

[Law2Doc]

But also; shy and introvert =/= antisocial.

Depends which dictionary you are using. It doesn't equal if you are talking about introvert in the "Myers Briggs", Jungian sense. But it DOES equal antisocial if you are using the more common, lay definition. Introvert, to the general lay population means a person who tends to shrink from social contacts and to become preoccupied with their own thoughts, i.e. an antisocial person.

This has been hashed out in other threads and the consensus is that when you use the word introvert to people other than premeds and psychologists you will get a much more negative connotation. I would thus stay away from this word in PS's etc.

 

[baylormed]

Depends which dictionary you are using. It doesn't equal if you are talking about introvert in the "Myers Briggs", Jungian sense. But it DOES equal antisocial if you are using the more common, lay definition. Introvert, to the general lay population means a person who tends to shrink from social contacts and to become preoccupied with their own thoughts, i.e. an antisocial person.

This has been hashed out in other threads and the consensus is that when you use the word introvert to people other than premeds and psychologists you will get a much more negative connotation. I would thus stay away from this word in PS's etc.

Who said I used it in my PS?

Also, to the other posters, it's important to notice that OUR impression of the interview might be different from the interviewer's impression. That' s why you'll find people saying "it went great!" who don't get in, and some who thought it was awful and yet they got into that school.

I'd just rather not draw conclusions from any of my interviews. Once it's over, there's nothing you can do about it, except wait for their decision and hope for the best.

 

[Law2Doc]

Who said I used it in my PS?

You didn't. But this word get used "wrong" (in the lay sense) enough on SDN that I thought it merited a helpful warning, not just to you but to everybody. For instance in another thread a person said that "just because they were an introvert didn't mean they didn't like to go out partying".🙄 I'm just saying that to a lot of (most) people "introvert" does not mean what perhaps some SDNers think it means.

I agree with the rest of your post -- you are likely not in the best position to gauge how well your interview went, so just do your best and don't think about it afterwards.

 

[asunshine]

this thread is just getting obnoxious now.

 

[baylormed]

this thread is just getting obnoxious now.

Then why did you bring it back to life? 😛

 

[AmoryBlaine]

So I just wrapped up my 3rd interview today, this time at the University of Michigan. After the interview and talking to other applicants, I would have to say that most people leave these interviews (myself included) thinking "boy, that went great, the interviewer seemed really interested in me." Also, it doesn't help when they compliment you and your application during the interview. But, suddenly today I was thinking that this truly can't be, as people get obviously get rejected post-interview. Am I just paranoid or do I and everyone else have an inflated sense of how interviews go? How do we objectively evaluate our interviews? Does anyone ever have a bad experience in an interview, or leave one thinking they blew it?

Only one bad interview (horrible). That was at the school I was accepted to 2 weeks later.

I know there's alot of gamesmanship trying to predict how you "performed" at an interview but your feelings on the subject are terrible predictors of your success at acceptance...

I basically told an interviewer at one school that I really wasn't that interested in going there (long story, he was pressing me about it for a long time - "what are you going to do if we don't admit you? isn't your MCAT score 'too high' for this school? if you really wanted to stay in our state why did you apply to other places?"). I got in 3 weeks later.

Good luck to you all, smile alot and have a good handshake. If you're interviewing now chances are you are set.

 

[Filibuster]

Only one bad interview (horrible). That was at the school I was accepted to 2 weeks later.

I know there's alot of gamesmanship trying to predict how you "performed" at an interview but your feelings on the subject are terrible predictors of your success at acceptance...

I basically told an interviewer at one school that I really wasn't that interested in going there (long story, he was pressing me about it for a long time - "what are you going to do if we don't admit you? isn't your MCAT score 'too high' for this school? if you really wanted to stay in our state why did you apply to other places?"). I got in 3 weeks later.

Good luck to you all, smile alot and have a good handshake. If you're interviewing now chances are you are set.

Excellent post. This absolutely nails it. I think it comes from the fact that the interview only plays a part in the decision. Even if you do blow an interview, the rest of your app could be what their look for and make up for it.

 

[Law2Doc]

Excellent post. This absolutely nails it. I think it comes from the fact that the interview only plays a part in the decision. Even if you do blow an interview, the rest of your app could be what their look for and make up for it.

It doesn't work that way everywhere. A lot of places use the rest of the app just to decide if you even get to that interview session, and the interview is the real weight after that. More likely AmoryBlaine didn't do as poorly as he thought, (or a lot of the competition was worse).

 

[zimmie256]

In my opinion this isn't really the best way to look at it. The interview is not just another factor. It is the biggest factor. All the other stuff was just the fuel necessary to get you to the interview stage. But once you get to that stage, you really have to look at the interview as the only game in town. At some schools, where everyone who gets to this stage is treated equal and deemed acceptable (and all prior stats are no longer looked at), it actually IS the only game in town. A bad interview can send you straight to the waitlist while a good interview can get you in. Sure, you can have a "good" interview and still get rejected but that is usually because others had "better" interviews.

I don't dispute that the interview is the biggest factor (because I don't have evidence to the contrary). However, I do think that it's unfortunate if that is in fact the case. People have studied the effectiveness of different selection factors in predicting future performance... Interviews continually come up at the bottom of the list as being the worst predictors of future performance. So if all these med schools spouting their beliefs in evidence-based medicine etc. really believe that evidence should determine policy, then they will weight the interview lower than the other factors that are better predictors of how students will do once in medical school.

 

[Law2Doc]

I don't dispute that the interview is the biggest factor (because I don't have evidence to the contrary). However, I do think that it's unfortunate if that is in fact the case. People have studied the effectiveness of different selection factors in predicting future performance... Interviews continually come up at the bottom of the list as being the worst predictors of future performance. So if all these med schools spouting their beliefs in evidence-based medicine etc. really believe that evidence should determine policy, then they will weight the interview lower than the other factors that are better predictors of how students will do once in medical school.

The trick is how you measure future performance. If you are measuring it based on things like the USMLE then you are perhaps looking to a different barometer than schools are (although they consider this as well).
To a large extent medicine is trying to not only keep stats high, but also generate the kind of doctors that patients are seeking. There has been a lot of realization of late, with the rise of patient autonomy, patient bills of rights, HIPAA privacy rights etc, that this is a customer service business. There has been a ton of concern that the previous couple of generations of doctors were not getting the job done in terms of patient satisfaction. Hence schools a few decades back started taking in non-sci majors, more nontrads and beefing up the importance of the interview. I don't know if this will work (nor likely does anyone), but the bottom line is that the previously relied upon predictors of future performance were simply not getting the desired results.