About the 1 in 2 question -- so far, at the four schools I have interviewed, they have all mentioned that about half of those interviewed ultimately get accepted. However, I'm sure this probably doesn't apply to all schools, esp. some of the most competitive, ie Harvard, Hopkins, etc. I would have to look at the US News website again, but make sure you are reading the headings right -- typically they don't list the # of acceptances for a school, but rather the # matriculated. But again, I haven't seen that site in a while, so I could be wrong. At one school I interviewed, they specifically mentioned that the AAMC requires, or "highly recommends" that all state schools admit at least 1.5x their class size, and that private schools admit 2x their class size, to guarantee that all spaces are occupied. This concept seems to gel pretty well with what I have heard from the other schools, in describing their admissions processes. My personal theory is that it seems extremely difficult to just get rejected after the interview process -- some schools even have flat-out admitted this. You either get accepted, or you get wait-listed (again, I am generalizing upon 4 schools I have personal experience with). Actually, I take that back -- I am generalizing upon my own experience, as well as that of four very close friends who all applied in the previous two years -- they all got either waitlisted or accepted post-interview, no flat-out rejections (at this was at some very top-tier schools, such as Hopkins, Wash U, Yale, Duke, Stanford). From what I have seen from the interview process, a lot of it is to see if you "fit" with the school, if these people would like to teach you or be classmates with you. However, I think you are probably right about the "fine-tuning" at this stage -- I don't think it's really the interview itself that makes or breaks you -- rather the final analysis of your application in its entirety, and how it stacks up to everyone else.
[This message has been edited by lilycat (edited 12-21-2000).]