Early interviews question

[DaGhost]

Someone on Reddit posted a thread claiming that early interviews are given to really good applicants, but also really bad applicants who are used to train interviewers. Is there any truth to that?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[squeakpeak]

Someone on Reddit posted a thread claiming that early interviews are given to really good applicants, but also really bad applicants who are used to train interviewers. Is there any truth to that?

Why would a school waste resources interviewing "bad" applicants? If extended an interview, you're being considered for admission.

 

[Maebea]

Admissions interviews are time consuming enough without adding "bad" applicants to train new faculty. New faculty ten to think all MSTP applicants are great, so we apply a degree of skepticism to their assessments.

 

[faerie62]

Definitely not true but a scary thought when you already have some degree of imposter syndrome xD

 

[DaGhost]

Admissions interviews are time consuming enough without adding "bad" applicants to train new faculty. New faculty ten to think all MSTP applicants are great, so we apply a degree of skepticism to their assessments.

That's interesting. I had a professor who occasionally reviews MD/PhD applicants tell me, "everyone I interview seems like a strong candidate, but how I score them on the evaluation doesn't seem to correlate with whether they're admitted or not."

 

[faerie62]

at my school all the interviewers evaluate applicants, but generally only the MSTP director and adcom member interviews are weighed heavily for admissions decisions.