Early Interview = Greater Chance of Acceptance?

[TravellinDoc]

Anyone know if you're part of the first wave of interviews that you're considered one of the better applicants by that school? Does this mean you have a better chance at acceptance? Thanks for your opinions!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[adamj61]

God I hope so. Depends on the school I imagine. Tulane for sure, but no way for columbia.

 

[IndyZX]

It would make sense for that to be true. Evidence can be found on the interview thread, because it seems like the balla applicants are getting interviews early, and those are the types that will probably have a really good shot.

 

[mdsh00]

I think so, especially for schools that have rolling admissions.

 

[superdevil]

Originally Posted by TravellinDoc
Anyone know if you're part of the first wave of interviews that you're considered one of the better applicants by that school? Does this mean you have a better chance at acceptance?

i've always heard that this is true, but i don't have any proof to back it up.

i would pretty much assume that its true for the rolling-admission school for sure, though. the non-rollers...well, it may still apply, as they may not want an applicant that they *really* want to already be holding 5 acceptances before they even step foot on campus, you know?

 

[calstudent]

this is an interesting question. maybe some MS 1's can provide their input?

 

[exmike]

yes, earlier is better.

 

[principessa]

Depends. At rolling schools I think an early interview is a definite advantage. At non-rolling schools I think it matters less.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Well, here's a problem of causation or correlation. Do early interviews grant a better chance of acceptance or do the top applicants get early interviews.

 

[calstudent]

Well, here's a problem of causation or correlation. Do early interviews grant a better chance of acceptance or do the top applicants get early interviews.

Excellent point.

 

[MG Md 2B]

As a very much not top applicant (crappy mcat), I have 2 interviews thus far. Hoping I'll have a better shot by going early.

 

[PostalWookie]

I think it's just that people who are on top in terms of mcats and grades are also really good about getting the different components of the app done, and LORs aren't a problem if you get good grades and stuff. So it's possible that the people getting interviewed early are the gunners, and the rest of us slackers get our stuff in a bit later.

 

[mdsh00]

I think it's just that people who are on top in terms of mcats and grades are also really good about getting the different components of the app done, and LORs aren't a problem if you get good grades and stuff. So it's possible that the people getting interviewed early are the gunners, and the rest of us slackers get our stuff in a bit later.

I don't know if I agree with that. I have not good numbers and yet I'm almost done with the 40 secondaries (Yes...CA resident) that I sent in. I think having lower numbers motivated me to go all out on the primary and secondaries. And with that I already have 1 allo and 2 osteo interviews. So I think staying ahead has helped me.

 

[45408]

An M4 told me yesterday that one of his top bits of advice was to apply early. He had to priority mail his stuff in just to make sure the schools got it the day of the deadline.

 

[PostalWookie]

I did all my stuff super early. Submitted AMCAS on June 2nd - got my secondaries same time as everyone else, so that made no difference. Finished 9 out of my 13 secondaries within a few days of receiving them. But then in the end, I got screwed by my premed commiittee, which just sent out my letters on the 23rd of August. That sucked.
Wait what was my point?
Oh yea, doing stuff early is good, but doing ana wesome job is better. A cool, confident person interviewing late will do better than a neurotic douche who interviews early.

 

[mcjay]

Last year I had to wait to the very end of September to submit my AMCAS I then proceeded to finish my secondaries close to their dealines (due to a very busy scholastic schedule). I still got four interviews, but no acceptances.

Moral of the story: get your stuff in early!

 

[efex101]

Yes

 

[jetskigirl]

What adcoms have told me (for rolling admissions): At the beginning of the year, there are more spots so they accept more people, including those with lower stats. At the end of the cycle, where there are only like five spots left, they're going to be more restrictive about who they let in.

So early interviews = more likely to get in.

As far as who is given early interviews, I'd guess the two factors are the adcoms liking your app (i.e. it being compatible with the school) and simply getting it in early so they can review it. As mcjay said, get your stuff in early.

 

[Madhatter]

my premed committee said they wont send out my letters till the first week of september, is this seriously going to delay my applications??

 

[mcjay]

There is a chance that it will. All of the schools I've dealt with wont consider your application complete until they get you letter(s) .

 

[j0ker918]

If top students get early interviews. Then even if you're stellar, you're competing against other stellar candidates. If below average applicants get late interviews, then they're competing against other candidates their level. I dont' think anything really helps. Just do a good job on the interview. I guess the only difference is getting accepted with a LATE LATE LATE interview which is hard no matter what.

 

[pushkin]

Once you've been invited for an interview, is there any disadvantage if you schedule it a ways out? I have 2 interviews in cities that are close to each other, but far from where I live. I'd like to do them in one trip, but to schedule it that way I'd have to wait til late October. If I do them separately, I can do one in late September and the other in mid October. I don't really want to put the September one off a whole month. On the other hand it's going to be about $500 per trip.

Any thoughts? Thanks!

 

[PositivePostBac]

As I understand it, for schools that have rolling admissions, a pretty set number are accepted, waitlisted and rejected post-interview after each round/day of candidate interviews... what that means is that the true advantage for the early student is if he/she has a mediocre interview and is waitlisted.... most schools do wind up accepting people off the waitlist, although that number varies each year and each school... so, a waitlisted candidate in the beginning of the admissions cycle is almost gauranteed an eventual spot, while the candidate waitlisted a month later may have a difficult chance and the same candidate a month after that no chance....

 

[stinkycheese]

As I understand it, for schools that have rolling admissions, a pretty set number are accepted, waitlisted and rejected post-interview after each round/day of candidate interviews... what that means is that the true advantage for the early student is if he/she has a mediocre interview and is waitlisted.... most schools do wind up accepting people off the waitlist, although that number varies each year and each school... so, a waitlisted candidate in the beginning of the admissions cycle is almost gauranteed an eventual spot, while the candidate waitlisted a month later may have a difficult chance and the same candidate a month after that no chance....

I don't think it's when you're waitlisted that matters; its your rank or position on the list.

 

[cajuntexan00]

It means two things. One..you applied early. Two....you have good grades. It's good but definately not a certainty. Make sure you relax during that first interview. I know my first interview was the worst because I was so nervous.

Anyone know if you're part of the first wave of interviews that you're considered one of the better applicants by that school? Does this mean you have a better chance at acceptance? Thanks for your opinions!

 

[wends]

man, i dont care when i interview...i just want a ACCEPTANCE please please pretty please

 

[rgporter]

Well, here's a problem of causation or correlation. Do early interviews grant a better chance of acceptance or do the top applicants get early interviews.

My MDapplicant profile is 1489. I considered myself an above average applicant. I think my first interview was in December, that is pretty late to start interviewing.
I am sure that interviewing so late in the process hurt my chances at some schools. Early is definitely an indication of a better shot at an acceptance.

 

[calstudent]

I don't think it's when you're waitlisted that matters; its your rank or position on the list.

yes, that's what i thought too. i would be surprised if the later you interview, the lower you go on the wait list.

 

[PositivePostBac]

I don't think it's when you're waitlisted that matters; its your rank or position on the list.

stinky, is that right? Are you sure? I thought the waitlist was ranked on a first-come, first-serve basis.... are you saying that you get a certain "grade" during your interview and that it stays with you afterward, so that if you are waitlisted you are ranked based on said grade instead of the order in which you got on the waitlist?

 

[stinkycheese]

stinky, is that right? Are you sure? I thought the waitlist was ranked on a first-come, first-serve basis.... are you saying that you get a certain "grade" during your interview and that it stays with you afterward, so that if you are waitlisted you are ranked based on said grade instead of the order in which you got on the waitlist?

I dont think rank is determined just by interview score, but I am also certain that you are not placed on a waitlist in the order in which you interviewed. In fact, people who get waitlisted earlier in the process when there are more seats available are probably weaker candidates than people who get waitlisted later when they're competing for fewer spots. For example, if you get waitlisted in December after a November interview, then you're probably not exactly what the school is looking for since its doubtful that their class is even half full, and yet you didnt get a spot. If you are waitlisted in April after a March interview, the school might just love you, but not have many spots left. Therefore, I would presume the April waitlistee is higher on the list than the December one.

 

[Peterock]

I dont think rank is determined just by interview score, but I am also certain that you are not placed on a waitlist in the order in which you interviewed. In fact, people who get waitlisted earlier in the process when there are more seats available are probably weaker candidates than people who get waitlisted later when they're competing for fewer spots. For example, if you get waitlisted in December after a November interview, then you're probably not exactly what the school is looking for since its doubtful that their class is even half full, and yet you didnt get a spot. If you are waitlisted in April after a March interview, the school might just love you, but not have many spots left. Therefore, I would presume the April waitlistee is higher on the list than the December one.

I know for a fact that students waitlisted at UNC are ranked by time.. that is, the later you're waitlisted, the lower your priority.

 

[PositivePostBac]

I dont think rank is determined just by interview score, but I am also certain that you are not placed on a waitlist in the order in which you interviewed. In fact, people who get waitlisted earlier in the process when there are more seats available are probably weaker candidates than people who get waitlisted later when they're competing for fewer spots. For example, if you get waitlisted in December after a November interview, then you're probably not exactly what the school is looking for since its doubtful that their class is even half full, and yet you didnt get a spot. If you are waitlisted in April after a March interview, the school might just love you, but not have many spots left. Therefore, I would presume the April waitlistee is higher on the list than the December one.

This is interesting... stinky, do you have any personal experience / inside info that makes you so sure of this? How do you know? I always thought the opposite was held true... to explain my reasoning let's take a sample school which has a class size of 120 that has a great applicant pool early on and decides to accept everyone it interviews in its first round of admissions, which happens to be 8 days in the month of september, with 15 people at each day, totalling 120.... in this case, there would be no spots left for anyone who interviews after september... to keep this from happening, it was my assumption that schools try and admit, waitlist and reject a given number of people during each round of interviews and then rank the waitlist on a first come first serve basis, assuming that those interviewed earlier are done are not necessarily just quicker but also more competitive applicants. In your example you compare the student who gets a March interview as being more competitive, but what about the student that gets a March interview and gets waitlisted when he applied in August? Wouldn't you assume he is less competitive? And if your reasoning is correct, than you have to assume the waitlist is continuously changing in rank over time; how can this be true when some schools can tell you your ranking on the waitlist before the interview process is finished? Just a few thoughts...