Has anyone felt like they had a just "okay" interview but got in anyways?

[Isoval]

At my first interview, I found that a handful of the medical students there felt that one (or both) of their interviews were middling, hard to read, or just "okay" yet (obviously) got in to the school anyways.

Given that basically everyone seems to feel their interviews went phenomenally well, it seems odd that people who think they had just "okay" interviews were the ones who prevalently matriculated to the school.

Has this happened with any of you all? I'm curious.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TheBiologist]

what school had an interview already

also, isn't there a saying like 'the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt"

 

[gyngyn]

I was completely sure that one of my interviewers didn't like me at all.
I subsequently attended and graduated from that school.

 

[NotASerialKiller]

Given that basically everyone seems to feel their interviews went phenomenally well, it seems odd that people who think they had just "okay" interviews were the ones who prevalently matriculated to the school.

Huh? I don't know who you've been talking to but that's definitely not standard. Of those who are rejected some feel it went really well, some are unsure and some feel it went terribly. Of those who get accepted some feel it went really well, some are unsure, and some feel it went terribly.

And that's not a dismissive "chin up" type answer optimistically ignoring a prevalent trend, applicants are genuinely horrible at judging how an interview went. Unless you did something ABSOLUTELY outrageous (crying in an interview doesn't count, lots of people do that) you'll have no clue how it went until you hear back. If you graphed how applicants thought they scored vs. how they actually scored, it would probably look like a random scatter plot.

Basically what I'm saying is that how you feel after an interview means very little, you'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Isoval]

Huh? I don't know who you've been talking to but that's definitely not standard. Of those who are rejected some feel it went really well, some are unsure and some feel it went terribly. Of those who get accepted some feel it went really well, some are unsure, and some feel it went terribly.

And that's not a dismissive "chin up" type answer optimistically ignoring a prevalent trend, applicants are genuinely horrible at judging how an interview went. Unless you did something ABSOLUTELY outrageous (crying in an interview doesn't count, lots of people do that) you'll have no clue how it went until you hear back. If you graphed how applicants thought they scored vs. how they actually scored, it would probably look like a random scatter plot.

Basically what I'm saying is that how you feel after an interview means very little, you'll just have to wait and see.

This would be a fun graph to make!

 

[P0ke]

My interviewer told me "I'm sure you'll get in somewhere" after the interview. About a month later, I got an acceptance email. Guess that "somewhere" was right there.

 

[Skydive Fox]

I felt like mine went horrible; the interviewers seemed disinterested and rushed me through in less than 1/4 the time as others. I got in.

 

[Isoval]

My interviewer told me "I'm sure you'll get in somewhere" after the interview. About a month later, I got an acceptance email. Guess that "somewhere" was right there.

My first interviewer kept talking to me about what I should look for in a where I choose to go to medical school / give a lot of thought to other places I interview and I wasn't really sure what to think.

That's actually quite reassuring.

 

[Govols22]

A lot of our interpration toward how our interview went is based on our interviewer and how they are acting. If you have an upbeat interviewer you may think it went well. If you had a hardass then you may think it didn't go well. But that upbeat person is nice to everyone, and the hardass is a hardass to everyone.

 

[Goro]

At my first interview, I found that a handful of the medical students there felt that one (or both) of their interviews were middling, hard to read, or just "okay" yet (obviously) got in to the school anyways.

Given that basically everyone seems to feel their interviews went phenomenally well, it seems odd that people who think they had just "okay" interviews were the ones who prevalently matriculated to the school.

Has this happened with any of you all? I'm curious.

Most people are terrible judges of their own interview performance

 

[PreMedMissteps]

If you read thru some MDapps you'll see some applicants mention that an interview didn't go as well as they'd hope, but they were accepted anyway. Don't know if the student just had a wrong perception, or maybe their other strengths carried more weight. If it's the former, then perhaps the interviewer just isn't a warm/fuzzy person and gives everyone the feeling that things aren't going that great.

 

[DBC03]

This reminds me of predicting your MCAT score based on how you feel. Some of us just judge ourselves quite a bit more harshly than others. I felt like I bombed some sections and really succeeded in others, then ended up scoring exactly the opposite. I'm hoping I'll have a better gauge on interviews (if I get one), but I agree with other posters that it's hard to judge because of the various personalities involved.