harvard interviews

[medSchool8000]

how did ppl who had interviews feel about their interviewers? positive/negative impressions. one of mine said hope to see you next year (is that what they say to everyone?) and the other said they don't have that much influence/it's mostly what is on the paper (negative?). thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[seraph524]

As far as I know for Harvard, your interviewer is the first screening round. If they like you, they will forward your file to the second round. The second round has the power to veto or accept you. So, regardless of how much the first round people like you, it's all up to the second round admission committee.

Interestingly, the first round people don't even know how the second round people work. That is where all the awesome things like legacies and elitism comes into play 🙂

 

[SoxPatriots]

The interviewers are not the first screening round. They write up their reports which go into your file. The interviewers are then done with the process. The sub-committee then decides if you go on to the final round depending on your entire file - gpa/mcat/ec/ps/interview reports. Therefore, people with the best interviews can get rejected and vice-versa depending on the other stuff. Interviewers arent in the meeting to defend you or trash you.

 

[medSchool8000]

well if the interviewers are on the subcommittee, then how are they not there at the meetings?

 

[SnoPearl]

The interviewers are not the first screening round. They write up their reports which go into your file. The interviewers are then done with the process. The sub-committee then decides if you go on to the final round depending on your entire file - gpa/mcat/ec/ps/interview reports. Therefore, people with the best interviews can get rejected and vice-versa depending on the other stuff. Interviewers arent in the meeting to defend you or trash you.

]

I was told by my interviewer that there is always one interviewer of yours in the subcommittee meeting, to have someone that knows the person well enough to comment on the issues brought up. So at least during the subcommittee screening, your rapport with your interviewer is very important.

 

[SoxPatriots]

Believe what you wish . . .

 

[LovelyMD]

Hmm... one of my interviewers told me that the interviewers are part of the subcommittee, and that they do meet together.

Eh, I don't care too much about those specific details. I just want to know if I got in or not.

 

[08675309]

I don't know about you guys, but they kept telling us that they were going to be no-stress and low-key interviews, but this was not the case for me. The student interview was fine and it in fact was pretty low-key and conversational, but my faculty/physician interview was terrible! I felt as though it was an inquisition, and the interviewer kept asking question after question and I didn't have a chance to shut my mouth for the whole hour. Then the interviewer started quizzing me on my ECs and trying to trip me up (I guess to test if I really did those things? I don't really know what the point of this was, other than to stress me out). Anyway, I sincerely hope that the student interview counts for as much as the faculty one..but I guess in that case they'd just cancel each other out and I'd be screwed anyway. Oh well.

 

[SnoPearl]

Believe what you wish . . .

Why do you feel so confident that there are no interviewers in the subcommittee meetings? What is your source? My interviewer sat me down and gave me a run of the entire process, because he wanted me to know how it worked. Unless you're suggesting that he is lying to his interviewees...

 

[LovelyMD]

Why do you feel so confident that there are no interviewers in the subcommittee meetings? What is your source? My interviewer sat me down and gave me a run of the entire process, because he wanted me to know how it worked. Unless you're suggesting that he is lying to his interviewees...

My interviewer did the same thing.

 

[08675309]

My interviewer did the same thing.

I'm starting to feel like I really got the shaft with interviewers. Mine did no such thing...

 

[DulyNoted]

The interviewers are not the first screening round. They write up their reports which go into your file. The interviewers are then done with the process. The sub-committee then decides if you go on to the final round depending on your entire file - gpa/mcat/ec/ps/interview reports. Therefore, people with the best interviews can get rejected and vice-versa depending on the other stuff. Interviewers arent in the meeting to defend you or trash you.

A Harvard undergrad from a year or two ago has said the following: the interviewers rank you 9, 9.5, or 10. Those with two 10s pass the first round of cuts without consideration and those with two 9s are rejected. Those falling in between have their files discussed and a decision is made to move their files along or to reject them. So based upon this person's info, the worst interviewees CANNOT be accepted but the best may still be rejected at the later (sub?)committee meeting. I assume the interview scores come into play in both decisions.

 

[SoxPatriots]

I have a good source, but I could be wrong. Either way no one has control over it so I just think we should all try to wait and find out.

A good interview will help, a bad interview will hurt.

 

[Dr OCD]

A Harvard undergrad from a year or two ago has said the following: the interviewers rank you 9, 9.5, or 10. Those with two 10s pass the first round of cuts without consideration and those with two 9s are rejected. Those falling in between have their files discussed and a decision is made to move their files along or to reject them. So based upon this person's info, the worst interviewees CANNOT be accepted but the best may still be rejected at the later (sub?)committee meeting. I assume the interview scores come into play in both decisions.

ive definitely heard this before

 

[med007]

If it's any help to anyone, here is the list of committees published by the medical school itself online.

http://www.hms.harvard.edu/fa/standcomm/index.html

If your interviewers' names are listed, as mine are, I assume they sit on the subcommittees they are assigned to and advocate on your behalf. Then, assuming your ratings are high enough, you will pass on to the main committee for evaluation.

 

[SnoPearl]

If it's any help to anyone, here is the list of committees published by the medical school itself online.

http://www.hms.harvard.edu/fa/standcomm/index.html

If your interviewers' names are listed, as mine are, I assume they sit on the subcommittees they are assigned to and advocate on your behalf. Then, assuming your ratings are high enough, you will pass on to the main committee for evaluation.

Thanks for that list! Apparently one of my interviewers is on subcommittee II and one is on the main committee (that should be interesting...). And one of my LOR writers is on the HST main committee lol I didn't realize that one...

 

[SBBunny]

If it's any help to anyone, here is the list of committees published by the medical school itself online.

http://www.hms.harvard.edu/fa/standcomm/index.html

If your interviewers' names are listed, as mine are, I assume they sit on the subcommittees they are assigned to and advocate on your behalf. Then, assuming your ratings are high enough, you will pass on to the main committee for evaluation.

Yeah, my student interviewer is on one of the committees... but my faculty interviewer isn't. That's unfortunate for me, because my faculty interview was AMAZING (by far my best interview of all the schools that I've been to) and the student interview was good... but not great.

 

[Celcius]

I know this is unrelated, but does anyone know if Harvard is still interviewing or not???

 

[studyin]

What's the number next to their name mean?

 

[LovelyMD]

Yeah, my student interviewer is on one of the committees... but my faculty interviewer isn't. That's unfortunate for me, because my faculty interview was AMAZING (by far my best interview of all the schools that I've been to) and the student interview was good... but not great.

Yeah, my student interviewer is on a subcommittee, but my faculty interviewer is on the main committee. I wish my faculty interviewer was on the subcommittee though. I thought my faculty interview went much more smoothly than my student one did.

 

[LovelyMD]

I know this is unrelated, but does anyone know if Harvard is still interviewing or not???

Someone posted in another thread that today is the last day of interviews there.

 

[JazzDoc]

I had two faculty interviewers, one on the main committee and one on a subcommittee. It seems like most people's interviewers were on one of the committees. Did anyone else have one who wasn't?

I wish I had known about these lists before my interviews!

 

[hra87]

How about if both interviewers are on SEPERATE subcommittees? This is really important for me, since one of my interviews went extremely well, the other went pretty good.

Any clues?

 

[SBBunny]

Yeah, my student interviewer is on a subcommittee, but my faculty interviewer is on the main committee. I wish my faculty interviewer was on the subcommittee though. I thought my faculty interview went much more smoothly than my student one did.

I think it's better for your faculty interviewer to be on the main committee. I'm going on pure intuition here, but my impression is that the main committee is tougher than the subcommittees... so it's good to have someone there who really likes you. So, it's all good!

My faculty interviewer isn't on any of the subcommittees or the main one, so aside from his interview report, he has no input on the final decision that is made.

 

[WellWornLad]

That's funny, I wasn't going crazy before cruising SDN...

Harvard thread, I think you and me need some time apart. I'm going to go curl up in the fetal position, I'll see you in a couple weeks.

 

[Raoul9]

I think it's better for your faculty interviewer to be on the main committee. I'm going on pure intuition here, but my impression is that the main committee is tougher than the subcommittees... so it's good to have someone there who really likes you. So, it's all good!

My faculty interviewer isn't on any of the subcommittees or the main one, so aside from his interview report, he has no input on the final decision that is made.

Yeah, one of my faculty interviewers isn't anywhere. A major drag, since that one went MUCH better than the other. Drat.

 

[cruz21]

OK so amidst all of this excitement I think my brain isn't really getting it-- what is better, having someone on the regular committee or the subcommittee? My faculty interviewer is on the main committee and student interviewer is on one of the subcommittees (the student interview went better, though). Is this good? I don't understand how the committee to subcommittee process works -- can anyone explain...please!!

 

[med007]

Honestly, none of us really knows the ins and outs of all this. Just relax. I think as much as people like to calculate and know with certainty what decisions they'll receive in another two weeks or so, it's out of our hands. No amount of speculation can change the decisions that have already been made concerning our futures.

 

[LovelyMD]

I think it's better for your faculty interviewer to be on the main committee. I'm going on pure intuition here, but my impression is that the main committee is tougher than the subcommittees... so it's good to have someone there who really likes you. So, it's all good!

My faculty interviewer isn't on any of the subcommittees or the main one, so aside from his interview report, he has no input on the final decision that is made.

True, but if I didn't make it past the subcommittee, then having an interviewer on the main committee will do me no good. Oh well, nothing I can do now, except wait and see what happens. I've been pretty good about this whole "waiting patiently" thing so far.

 

[medSchool8000]

does anyone know how difficult it is to pass the subcommittee screening? how many ppl move to the committtee?

 

[SnoPearl]

does anyone know how difficult it is to pass the subcommittee screening? how many ppl move to the committtee?

My memory is slightly hazy on the numbers, but I think my interviewer said out of approx 1000 interviewees, about 500 make the cut to the main committee.

 

[spanamit]

My memory is slightly hazy on the numbers, but I think my interviewer said out of approx 1000 interviewees, about 500 make the cut to the main committee.

My interviewer told me that the same subcommittee processes all the applicants from a given undergrad. In my opinion, this kind of sucks because then you are essentially competing against applicants who went to your undergrad (potentially against your friends). Also, I think the number of people whose application reaches the main committee is far smaller than 500.

 

[SBBunny]

My interviewer told me that the same subcommittee processes all the applicants from a given undergrad. In my opinion, this kind of sucks because then you are essentially competing against applicants who went to your undergrad (potentially against your friends). Also, I think the number of people whose application reaches the main committee is far smaller than 500.

UGH. If that's true, I'm absolutely not getting in. I know several people who kicked my *** up and down the halls of my undergrad.

 

[Raoul9]

My interviewer told me that the same subcommittee processes all the applicants from a given undergrad. In my opinion, this kind of sucks because then you are essentially competing against applicants who went to your undergrad (potentially against your friends). Also, I think the number of people whose application reaches the main committee is far smaller than 500.

I think 500 might be right on the mark for the main committee.

Presumably the main committee differentiates between acceptances/waitlists and ultimately rejects some portion of the folks they review. If you expect to see ~180 acceptances and another 150-200 on the waitlist, then they would probably see about 500 overall.

 

[08675309]

buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuump because this thread makes my heart beat just a little bit faster

 

[spanamit]

I think 500 might be right on the mark for the main committee.

Presumably the main committee differentiates between acceptances/waitlists and ultimately rejects some portion of the folks they review. If you expect to see ~180 acceptances and another 150-200 on the waitlist, then they would probably see about 500 overall.

I remember reading somewhere that HMS waitlists very few people, something like 50-100. Let me see if I can find that old thread.

 

[med007]

I remember reading somewhere that HMS waitlists very few people, something like 50-100. Let me see if I can find that old thread.

I would agree. I don't know stats, but from what I've heard thrown around, they get something like 80% of their admitted applicants to matriculate, which means they don't have much of a need for a very long waitlist.

 

[LovelyMD]

My interviewer told me that the same subcommittee processes all the applicants from a given undergrad. In my opinion, this kind of sucks because then you are essentially competing against applicants who went to your undergrad (potentially against your friends). Also, I think the number of people whose application reaches the main committee is far smaller than 500.

UH-oh... this is not good news for me. There are way too many stellar applicants from my undergrad.

 

[spanamit]

UH-oh... this is not good news for me. There are way too many stellar applicants from my undergrad.

Ya! That totally freaked me out too.

 

[ICanDoThis]

I have a theory, although it's pure speculation:

If Harvard interviews around 1000 applicants total, then each subcommittee persumably reviews 250-300 applicants post-interview (assuming that not all of the interviewees were divided up perfectly evenly into the 4 subcommittees).

From the interviewees, I am speculating that 250-300 will move on to the final committee. This is based on the size of the final committee being slightly larger but similiar to that of the subcommittees and the fact that the final committee probably does not have that much time to re-review 500 or so apps. Therefore, I think perhaps the main admissions committee gets a similiar work-load as that of the subcommittees. Then, their task would be to award 180-200 admissions from the 250-300 pool and wait-list everyone else who made it past the subcommittees. (Of course, there might be a rejection here or there if the main committee finds a particular reason to do so...)

just a thought 🙄

 

[seraph524]

My interviewer told me that the same subcommittee processes all the applicants from a given undergrad. In my opinion, this kind of sucks because then you are essentially competing against applicants who went to your undergrad (potentially against your friends). Also, I think the number of people whose application reaches the main committee is far smaller than 500.

So...I'm the only person from my undergrad. Yay!

 

[spanamit]

I have a theory, although it's pure speculation:

If Harvard interviews around 1000 applicants total, then each subcommittee persumably reviews 250-300 applicants post-interview (assuming that not all of the interviewees were divided up perfectly evenly into the 4 subcommittees).

From the interviewees, I am speculating that 250-300 will move on to the final committee. This is based on the size of the final committee being slightly larger but similiar to that of the subcommittees and the fact that the final committee probably does not have that much time to re-review 500 or so apps. Therefore, I think perhaps the main admissions committee gets a similiar work-load as that of the subcommittees. Then, their task would be to award 180-200 admissions from the 250-300 pool and wait-list everyone else who made it past the subcommittees. (Of course, there might be a rejection here or there if the main committee finds a particular reason to do so...)

just a thought 🙄

This theory actually makes a lot of sense based on what I have read about Harvard and heard from interviewer and student host.

 

[ICanDoThis]

I have a theory, although it's pure speculation:

If Harvard interviews around 1000 applicants total, then each subcommittee persumably reviews 250-300 applicants post-interview (assuming that not all of the interviewees were divided up perfectly evenly into the 4 subcommittees).

From the interviewees, I am speculating that 250-300 will move on to the final committee. This is based on the size of the final committee being slightly larger but similiar to that of the subcommittees and the fact that the final committee probably does not have that much time to re-review 500 or so apps. Therefore, I think perhaps the main admissions committee gets a similiar work-load as that of the subcommittees. Then, their task would be to award 180-200 admissions from the 250-300 pool and wait-list everyone else who made it past the subcommittees. (Of course, there might be a rejection here or there if the main committee finds a particular reason to do so...)

just a thought 🙄

It looks like I'm going to stick with the above theory. I've been waitlisted for NP (with ~50 on the WL) and there are ~25 on the HST WL.

p.s. My LOR writer was called by the Adcom. So I'm thinking that the phone call wasn't necessarily a good or bad thing. (It could have gone either way, I suppose, based on how he answered the questions).