for adcoms: how do you evaluate applicants/compare us from interviews?

[aspiringdoctor87]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Just out of curiosity - what do interviewers really learn about us applicants from interviews, and how do they compare us?
I ask this because so far, everyone I've met is lovely. Everyone's nice to each other and most interviewees at the end of the day say that their interviewers were also super nice and that they thought it went well. But ultimately roughly 20-50% get accepted (with some exceptions). So how do interviewers really compare us?
I know there's probably no exact answer to this, but I'm just curious to see what adcoms might have to say. Thanks!

 

[710118]

Just out of curiosity - what do interviewers really learn about us applicants from interviews, and how do they compare us?
I ask this because so far, everyone I've met is lovely. Everyone's nice to each other and most interviewees at the end of the day say that their interviewers were also super nice and that they thought it went well. But ultimately roughly 20-50% get accepted (with some exceptions). So how do interviewers really compare us?
I know there's probably no exact answer to this, but I'm just curious to see what adcoms might have to say. Thanks!

obv not an adcom but I imagine that as long as you are normal, your apps fate depends on the strength of the app for the most part

 

[Goro]

Just out of curiosity - what do interviewers really learn about us applicants from interviews, and how do they compare us?
I ask this because so far, everyone I've met is lovely. Everyone's nice to each other and most interviewees at the end of the day say that their interviewers were also super nice and that they thought it went well. But ultimately roughly 20-50% get accepted (with some exceptions). So how do interviewers really compare us?
I know there's probably no exact answer to this, but I'm just curious to see what adcoms might have to say. Thanks!

We learn if you can

Think on your feet
Are articulate
Are a good listener
Are a BSer
Be someone we can envision in the white coat
Be so.eone we want as a colleague
Be someone we'd let touch our kids or parents
Work as a team player
Be introspective
Deal with hypotheticals


Note: you are NOT being compared to other people. You are being compared to you.

 

[LizzyM]

Do you have a pleasant personality? Are you comfortable speaking to strangers?
Do you speak clearly? Do you have good language skills? Can you break down complex ideas into a way that is easy to understand?
Do you have maturity?
How do you deal with failure, disappointment and criticism?
What is your work ethic? What are your time management skills?
How do you deal with stress?

 

[deleted993098]

We learn if you can

Think on your feet
Are articulate
Are a good listener
Are a BSer
Be someone we can envision in the white coat
Be so.eone we want as a colleague
Be someone we'd let touch our kids or parents
Work as a team player
Be introspective
Deal with hypotheticals


Note: you are NOT being compared to other people. You are being compared to you.

For these things, it seems like most people interviewing (I'd say >50%) probably do well in these categories or perform similarly. At least based on my first interview, it seemed everyone was normal-ish and I'd be surprised if they did something "red flag" worthy during the interview. But in the end, most people are rejected post-interview. So if we are compared to ourselves, how do adcoms get to that high rejection rate post-interview? I don't think it's because a high amount of people are doing poorly in the interviews (I could be mistaken tho).

 

[907914]

For these things, it seems like most people interviewing (I'd say >50%) probably do well in these categories or perform similarly. At least based on my first interview, it seemed everyone was normal-ish and I'd be surprised if they did something "red flag" worthy during the interview. But in the end, most people are rejected post-interview. So if we are compared to ourselves, how do adcoms get to that high rejection rate post-interview? I don't think it's because a high amount of people are doing poorly in the interviews (I could be mistaken tho).

Across all schools it is around 45% post-II

 

[dr_kateb]

Are a BSer

I’m so in

 

[Engrailed]

Even though separating the 45% from the rest of the Interview pool seems like an impossible feat, I think there are certain things that they are skilled at discerning even though WE might not be aware of it.
Sure, during lunch breaks etc, everyone seems "so nice!" "so friendly" and "relaxed" etc, I can assure you that is not the same face we have on when we are alone in the interviewing room with the people that will conceivably decide our med school fate. Some may be more nervous than others, blank out, etc which may affect their interview performance rating.

 

[deleted966164]

Do you have a good language skills?

Lolz

 

[Engrailed]

Lolz

Why is that funny

 

[deleted966164]

Why is that funny

Because skills is plural and the correct way of saying it is “do you have good language skills” or “do you have a good language skill” 🙂

 

[Engrailed]

Because skills is plural and the correct way of saying it is “do you have good language skills” or “do you have a good language skill” 🙂

Oh haha.. I didnt even realize that. even after reading your comment just now, my brain skipped over it like some autocorrect function haha

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Do you project warmth? Can you connect with other people? How do you handle criticism? How do you respond to people who share ideas different than yours? Along with many of the above responses, these are things you cant glean from your app. This is why the interview is so crucial.

 

[Dr. Anonymouss]

obv not an adcom but I imagine that as long as you are normal, your apps fate depends on the strength of the app for the most part

But if your application wasn’t strong enough they wouldn’t invite you for an interview, that is what gets you an interview in the first place. And I’ve heard many people say that interviewees aren’t competing against each other for a seat but rather themselves, which I believe based on the fact that we wouldn’t have gotten the interview in the first place if they didn’t believe in our stats. The only discrepancy to this theory is that only around 50% of interviewees get accepted. I wonder what portion of the other 50% get waitlisted and what portion gets rejected. It’s just hard to believe that around half of the interviewees have bad social skills.

 

[Engrailed]

But if your application wasn’t strong enough they wouldn’t invite you for an interview, that is what gets you an interview in the first place. And I’ve heard many people say that interviewers aren’t competing against each other for a seat but rather themself, which I believe based on the fact that we wouldn’t have gotten the interview in the first place if they didn’t believe in our stats. The only discrepancy to this theory is that only around 50% of interviewers get accepted. I wonder what portion of the other 50% get waitlisted and what portion gets rejected.

So many navel gazing threads lately.
So much computational analysis happening during this time of yr (waiting for II/decisions etc)

 

[Goro]

For these things, it seems like most people interviewing (I'd say >50%) probably do well in these categories or perform similarly. At least based on my first interview, it seemed everyone was normal-ish and I'd be surprised if they did something "red flag" worthy during the interview. But in the end, most people are rejected post-interview. So if we are compared to ourselves, how do adcoms get to that high rejection rate post-interview? I don't think it's because a high amount of people are doing poorly in the interviews (I could be mistaken tho).

You are forgetting that getting into medical is an Olympic level event. LizzyM has explained the escalator model, which is a fine approximation of the process.

You are also forgetting that until you have been an interviewer yourself, you have no idea what a "good" interview is

 

[deleted993098]

You are forgetting that getting into medical is an Olympic level event. LizzyM has explained the escalator model, which is a fine approximation of the process.

You are also forgetting that until you have been an interviewer yourself, you have no idea what a "good" interview is

Goro, do the people you accept stand out to you during the interview? Like would you remember them after the interview or do the interviewees in general blend in your mind after the day is done?

 

[907914]

Even though separating the 45% from the rest of the Interview pool seems like an impossible feat, I think there are certain things that they are skilled at discerning even though WE might not be aware of it.
Sure, during lunch breaks etc, everyone seems "so nice!" "so friendly" and "relaxed" etc, I can assure you that is not the same face we have on when we are alone in the interviewing room with the people that will conceivably decide our med school fate. Some may be more nervous than others, blank out, etc which may affect their interview performance rating.

I had a conversation with a few other applicants a few weeks ago about something like this. "How do 12-20% of high stats applicants not get accepted?!"It makes you worried....like....will I be that 12-20%.....I know @Goro says interviewees are terrible at judging their performance....But, go to any of these interviews, and it is pretty darn easy to see how you can 'trim the fat' as the other applicant put it. That isn't to say it is easy to tell who will get an acceptance at a given school, but it easy to tell who will NOT be getting an acceptance....I don't know how to explain it, but get involved in small talk at a few interviews....and you will know.

Goro, do the people you accept stand out to you during the interview? Like would you remember them after the interview or do the interviewees in general blend in your mind after the day is done?

My guess would be that real stand outs in a positive light are rarities (the best pony IMHO). Stand outs in a negative light are likely frequent. My guess.

 

[deleted966164]

I had a conversation with a few other applicants a few weeks ago about something like this. "How do 12-20% of high stats applicants not get accepted?!"It makes you worried....like....will I be that 12-20%.....I know @Goro says interviewees are terrible at judging their performance....But, go to any of these interviews, and it is pretty darn easy to see how you can 'trim the fat' as the other applicant put it. That isn't to say it is easy to tell who will get an acceptance at a given school, but it easy to tell who will NOT be getting an acceptance....I don't know how to explain it, but get involved in small talk at a few interviews....and you will know.

Because "the medical school application process is like the Bachelor/Bachelorette on TV" - you have to be in there for the right reasons lolz...

 

[Goro]

Goro, do the people you accept stand out to you during the interview? Like would you remember them after the interview or do the interviewees in general blend in your mind after the day is done?

Not all of them. Sometimes we see people who are "meh" but we feel they can make it through our program, and be OK as doctors. Maybe as we're a DO school we're less cutthroat than MD schools, where perhaps everyone has to stand out to be accepted.

 

[907914]

Not all of them. Sometimes we see people who are "meh" but we feel they can make it through our program, and be OK as doctors. Maybe as we're a DO school we're less cutthroat than MD schools, where perhaps everyone has to stand out to be accepted.

I may just be pessimistic but I genuinely don’t feel that 40% of us are exceptionally rememberable for any particular interview aspect… at least based on my interactions.

 

[deleted966164]

(...)we're less cutthroat than MD schools, where perhaps everyone has to stand out to be accepted.

Sh$#t... bye guys, was nice knowing ya...

 

[Moko]

I may just be pessimistic but I genuinely don’t feel that 40% of us are exceptionally rememberable for any particular interview aspect… at least based on my interactions.

I wouldn't remember most people I interview if it wasn't for my notes. Often times applicants get remembered for the wrong reasons -- being overly robotic/rehearsed, too nervous, or just downright weird. If someone has a mediocre interview (as determined by the interviewer, and not by the applicant), they might still get an acceptance if the rest of their application is superb.

In addition to what others have mentioned, I would also add 'humility' and 'teachability' as being very important qualities to possess. The absence of these qualities have sunk otherwise strong applicants. There is a fine line between humility and unconfidence though.

Walking out of the interview, the interviewer should be able to confidently say 'yes' to the following questions:
- Can I see myself teaching this person?
- Can I see myself being this person's colleague?
- Can I see myself being comfortable and reassured as this person's patient?

 

[907914]

There is a fine line between humility and unconfidence though

@u_raptor during the cycle vs before the cycle

 

[907914]

I wouldn't remember most people I interview if it wasn't for my notes. Often times applicants get remembered for the wrong reasons -- being overly robotic/rehearsed, too nervous, or just downright weird. If someone has a mediocre interview (as determined by the interviewer, and not by the applicant), they might still get an acceptance if the rest of their application is superb.

In addition to what others have mentioned, I would also add 'humility' and 'teachability' as being very important qualities to possess. The absence of these qualities have sunk otherwise strong applicants. There is a fine line between humility and unconfidence though.

Walking out of the interview, the interviewer should be able to confidently say 'yes' to the following questions:
- Can I see myself teaching this person?
- Can I see myself being this person's colleague?
- Can I see myself being comfortable and reassured as this person's patient?

This is a very thorough review, thank you. It basically confirms what I have thought and felt this whole cycle.

Interviews are not to trip up or trick the applicant. Content and accomplishments are not being evaluated.

Are you on the right path?
Are you not only a good student but a good learner?
Will you fit in with what our school wants to do?

 

[aspiringdoctor87]

just wanted to say - thank you everyone for your input!
honestly, it helps a lot just to talk about this with everyone and realize that 1) it's kind of pointless to speculate at this point but 2) it's rather stress-reliving somehow to talk about it. LOL. and thank you to all the adcoms for providing your perspectives!

 

[strappysandals]

.

 

[907914]

Lol i have been reading every post and every theory ever discussed on sdn regarding post-II acceptance practices. I re read them on a daily basis, trying to find some answers. After this extensice research, Im drawing nearer and nearer to the conclusion that.... its gonna be a longg freaking wait until decisions from my top choice come out at the end of january...... 🙁

And here I am texting a friend “I will have an acceptance from these two schools within the first two weeks after October 15th, it is 50/50 if I hear back from this school, but if I do it will probably be a full ride, it is almost certainly a solid NO from this school, not completely sure on this school but it is more likely not than in favor and....no one knows how Mayo works.”

 

[ihoop24]

And here I am texting a friend “I will have an acceptance from these two schools within the first two weeks after October 15th,

How do you know this?

 

[907914]

How do you know this?

I am either arrogant, overconfident, egocentric, a good judge of things, or some combination of the above.

 

[deleted987519]

I am either arrogant, overconfident, and egocentric, a good judge of things, or some combination of the above.

FTFY 😉

 

[907914]

FTFY 😉

Probably, will let you know in 3-4 weeks lol

 

[Cornfed101]

I had a conversation with a few other applicants a few weeks ago about something like this. "How do 12-20% of high stats applicants not get accepted?!"It makes you worried....like....will I be that 12-20%.....

Some of this could be poor interviewing, but I think the more common ailment of high stats applicants is they don't have the clinical experience to back up the decision. If you have a 90 LizzyM and zero (or very little) clinical experience there is not a single med school that is going to take a chance on you.

 

[Goro]

Some of this could be poor interviewing, but I think the more common ailment of high stats applicants is they don't have the clinical experience to back up the decision. If you have a 90 LizzyM and zero (or very little) clinical experience there is not a single med school that is going to take a chance on you.

It's not just that..it's arrogance in essays...etc.

Or it might be as simple as a late application, or roo few apps

 

[tessellations]

Some of this could be poor interviewing, but I think the more common ailment of high stats applicants is they don't have the clinical experience to back up the decision. If you have a 90 LizzyM and zero (or very little) clinical experience there is not a single med school that is going to take a chance on you.

n=1, but I know of a high stat applicant who went straight through to a top 20 even though her only clinical experience was taking a CNA class. She didn't even work as one!!!

 

[Goro]

n=1, but I know of a high stat applicant who went straight through to a top 20 even though her only clinical experience was taking a CNA class. She didn't even work as one!!!

There's more to the story than this, and she's definitely an outlier.

 

[Heliobacter]

Some of this could be poor interviewing, but I think the more common ailment of high stats applicants is they don't have the clinical experience to back up the decision. If you have a 90 LizzyM and zero (or very little) clinical experience there is not a single med school that is going to take a chance on you.

I hope that getting interviews means that your clinical experience is at least passable. Totally not a secret worry of mine.

 

[deleted987519]

I hope that getting interviews means that your clinical experience is at least passable. Totally not a secret worry of mine.

If your LM is higher than your number of clinical hours...RIP

 

[KnightDoc]

But if your application wasn’t strong enough they wouldn’t invite you for an interview, that is what gets you an interview in the first place. And I’ve heard many people say that interviewees aren’t competing against each other for a seat but rather themselves, which I believe based on the fact that we wouldn’t have gotten the interview in the first place if they didn’t believe in our stats. The only discrepancy to this theory is that only around 50% of interviewees get accepted. I wonder what portion of the other 50% get waitlisted and what portion gets rejected. It’s just hard to believe that around half of the interviewees have bad social skills.

You are correct; they don't. The fallacy in the premise is that 50% don't get an A because of the interview. The interview is one of many inputs that go into the black box that yields the result. Some people have terrible interviews that turn what might have been an A into a R. Most don't.

In the end, everyone is ranked by a mysterious formula, and As go out based on number of available seats, expected yield and where you are in the ranking. It's really not as if everyone with an II is getting an A before the interview, and only half get them afterward, and the only intervening event is the interview! The reality is that everyone with an II is in the running to get an A, depending, ultimately, on the strength of their overall application, including the interview, as compared to everyone else. (Apologies to @Goro, who says you are not competing with everyone else in the interview. That's true as far as the interview goes, but it's not ultimately true, since you are absolutely competing with all other applicants for a limited number of seats.)

 

[imbesrs]

Because skills is plural and the correct way of saying it is “do you have good language skills” or “do you have a good language skill” 🙂

I always took it as many skills within the category of language. Enunciation, pace, intonation etc

 

[907914]

Enunciation, pace, intonation

I do all of these things very well only from having to speak in public A LOT. However, I used to have a really huge “umm” tendency. In order to eliminate that, I just sorta...pause. Now it comes off kinda like William Shatner In is Captain Kirk days. What do you think?

 

[dr_kateb]

Do you project warmth?

I keep the room freezing with how awesomely cool I am

Can you connect with other people?

I’m not a virgin. Is that what this question is asking?

How do you handle criticism? How do you respond to people who share ideas different than yours?

Call them a Nazi.

Am I doing this right?

 

[Angus Avagadro]

I keep the room freezing with how awesomely cool I am



I’m not a virgin. Is that what this question is asking?



Call them a Nazi.

Am I doing this right?

Yes! You are in the right track. Enjoy the Caribbean!

 

[Cornfed101]

It just occurred to me to start a medical school on a ship that only taught while in international waters. As long as I get a charter from any country in the world, I could register with WHO and thus students could sit for USMLE. If I have the ship flagged in another country, it would also take care of business licenses. I would name it the "Phineas Taylor Barnum School of Medicine" for logical reasons

Could this also count as part of the service commitment for navy HPSP?