How do schools differentiate competent candidates in interviews?

[710118]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I was reading the other thread on this page about worst "why med" answers in an interview. It got me thinking, most candidates, especially those interviewing at top schools, probably don't do dumb ridiculous stuff in the interview. Sure, maybe a few do, but I would imagine most are socially adept and have reasonable answers for why medicine and why our school. How do schools arrive at the 30 something percent accepted post interview? Am I mistaken and really, 30+ percent of candidates are socially inept and get weeded out within 90 seconds? Would love to hear some thoughts on this.

 

[907914]

I was reading the other thread on this page about worst "why med" answers in an interview. It got me thinking, most candidates, especially those interviewing at top schools, probably don't do dumb ridiculous stuff in the interview. Sure, maybe a few do, but I would imagine most are socially adept and have reasonable answers for why medicine and why our school. How do schools arrive at the 30 something percent accepted post interview? Am I mistaken and really, 30+ percent of candidates are socially inept and get weeded out within 90 seconds? Would love to hear some thoughts on this.

I think an issue you may see at top school interviews as opposed to other categories may just be that students have exhibited commitments towards absolutely nothing outside of academia and their check-box ECs that the stories they tell are from a good place but naive at best and wholly emotionless/superficial at worst. This is at least what I have picked up from SDN conversations (myself included in a lot of the naivety)

 

[calipremed5768]

Physical attractiveness, charisma, etc.

 

[Goro]

I was reading the other thread on this page about worst "why med" answers in an interview. It got me thinking, most candidates, especially those interviewing at top schools, probably don't do dumb ridiculous stuff in the interview. Sure, maybe a few do, but I would imagine most are socially adept and have reasonable answers for why medicine and why our school. How do schools arrive at the 30 something percent accepted post interview? Am I mistaken and really, 30+ percent of candidates are socially inept and get weeded out within 90 seconds? Would love to hear some thoughts on this.

If we like them all, we accept them all. It's a pre-med delusion that you, at interview, are competing with other people for a single seat.

You are only competing against yourself.

In any interview series, especially with group interviews, some people will stand out more than others. This doesn't mean that the average candidate will be penalized.

Now, those who are really socially inept, like being unable to carry on a converversation, or who can't look you in the eye, or who mumble, or chew gum, or hear you say X and answer Y, those people get rejected or waitlisted.

Read these:
Goro's Guide to Interviews
Goro's Guide to Interviews: The View from Behind the Curtain

 

[993444]

If we like them all, we accept them all. It's a pre-med delusion that you, at interview, are competing with other people for a single seat.

You are only competing against yourself.

In any interview series, especially with group interviews, some people will stand out more than others. This doesn't mean that the average candidate will be penalized.

Now, those who are really socially inept, like being unable to carry on a converversation, or who can't look you in the eye, or who mumble, or chew gum, or hear you say X and answer Y, those people get rejected or waitlisted.

Read these:
Goro's Guide to Interviews
Goro's Guide to Interviews: The View from Behind the Curtain

I’ve interviewed people for the marketing company I worked for. Here are some additional things I’d like to say:

-Hygiene is very important. Make sure your breath doesn’t smell. Your nails are trimmed. And PLEASE make sure you don’t have dandruff all over your shoulders.

-Nonverbal communication is extremely important. Men who are exceedingly arrogant have a very obnoxious communication style. They tend not to smile, lean back in their chair, and speak in a very “matter of fact” tone as if the question you asked was ridiculous. You can tell a lot about someone’s personality by the way they behave nonverbally.

 

[Goro]

I’ve interviewed people for the marketing company I worked for. Here are some additional things I’d like to say:

-Hygiene is very important. Make sure your breath doesn’t smell. Your nails are trimmed. And PLEASE make sure you don’t have dandruff all over your shoulders.

-Nonverbal communication is extremely important. Men who are exceedingly arrogant have a very obnoxious communication style. They tend not to smile and speak in a very “matter of fact” tone as if the question you asked was ridiculous. You can tell a lot about someone’s personality by the way they behave nonverbally.

Interestingly, I've never seen hygiene as an issue. Our candidates know they have to be on the ball for that one, at least.

Arrogance is real though. It seems to be a problem for people who already have an accept elsewhere. Looking bored is a related problem, as is contemptuous of fellow interviewees.

Also keep in mind that people who interview for med school are a very different demographic as those who would interview for a marketing position.

 

[NYCVillain]

Interviews are just one part of your assessment. Schools won’t accept you solely based off of an amazing interview performance. Your interview performance is considered with the rest of your application. It’s just one part of the score. Candidates who obtain interviews are not on even footing. There’s levels

 

[deleted804295]

If we like them all, we accept them all. It's a pre-med delusion that you, at interview, are competing with other people for a single seat.

You are only competing against yourself.

In any interview series, especially with group interviews, some people will stand out more than others. This doesn't mean that the average candidate will be penalized.

Now, those who are really socially inept, like being unable to carry on a converversation, or who can't look you in the eye, or who mumble, or chew gum, or hear you say X and answer Y, those people get rejected or waitlisted.

Read these:
Goro's Guide to Interviews
Goro's Guide to Interviews: The View from Behind the Curtain

Are interviews like across the room with 3 interviewers or are they 1 on 1 with you at a desk right in front of the interviewee?

 

[strappysandals]

Are interviews like across the room with 3 interviewers or are they 1 on 1 with you at a desk right in front of the interviewee?

depends on the school.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Students who project warmth and provide genuine responses score better than ones who are stiff and work in their canned response no matter what the question. The latter get the opportunity to matriculate at the OTHER med school of their choice. We are looking for empathetic human beings, not just students who excel in science. Watch being too glib or inappropriate behavior. Had one applicant take off his suit coat, unbutton his collar, roll up his sleeves at the beginning of the interview. Interrupted the other applicants when they answered. I allowed him to attend the OTHER med school of his choice

 

[Med Ed]

most candidates, especially those interviewing at top schools, probably don't do dumb ridiculous stuff in the interview.

Most don't, but enough do.

 

[Goro]

Are interviews like across the room with 3 interviewers or are they 1 on 1 with you at a desk right in front of the interviewee?

It can vary from 1 on 1, 2 on 1, 1 followed by another 1 or more, maybe 3 on 1, or 2+ on a group.

 

[Goro]

Interviews are just one part of your assessment. Schools won’t accept you solely based off of an amazing interview performance. Your interview performance is considered with the rest of your application. It’s just one part of the score. Candidates who obtain interviews are not on even footing. There’s levels

Once they get to interview stage, all candidates are close to equal. it's on them to sell themselves, but especially if their app is weaker.

 

[907914]

but especially if their app is weaker.

all candidates are close to equal.

These two statements are contradictory. And are we not to believe the staircase model of admissions?

 

[LizzyM]

See: Describe a good interview

Almost all applicants who get interview invites are admissible (there are always a few that are courtesy interviews done because someone needs to know that the candidate they championed got every consideration before being wait listed).

That said, there are degrees of admissibility -- Prior to interview we might place someone with a 3.95/520 and a year of NIH research ahead of someone with a 3.85/515, minimal research experience and a little involvement with Special Olympics although both are excellent candidates on paper. After meeting them, the former might fall down in the ranking due to being robotic or arrogant while the latter might rise to the top as an exceptionally warm, compassionate and intellectually curious candidate. Or the former might be warm and intellectually curious while the latter is somewhat stilted and rehearsed with an inability to think on their feet. That's why we do interviews and that is why even very strong candidates might be wait listed or rejected after interview.

 

[710118]

See: Describe a good interview

Almost all applicants who get interview invites are admissible (there are always a few that are courtesy interviews done because someone needs to know that the candidate they championed got every consideration before being wait listed).

That said, there are degrees of admissibility -- Prior to interview we might place someone with a 3.95/520 and a year of NIH research ahead of someone with a 3.85/515, minimal research experience and a little involvement with Special Olympics although both are excellent candidates on paper. After meeting them, the former might fall down in the ranking due to being robotic or arrogant while the latter might rise to the top as an exceptionally warm, compassionate and intellectually curious candidate. Or the former might be warm and intellectually curious while the latter is somewhat stilted and rehearsed with an inability to think on their feet. That's why we do interviews and that is why even very strong candidates might be wait listed or rejected after interview.

Suppose that the 3.85/520 is normal during the interview. They are not exceptionally bad but they are also not exceptionally good. Would this candidate likely get the bump over the 3.85/515 even if the latter is exceptionally good at the interview?

Is it the formers spot to lose and the latters spot to gain? Does the former just "not need to be bad" while the latter needs to be above and beyond?

 

[deleted820879]

See: Describe a good interview

Almost all applicants who get interview invites are admissible (there are always a few that are courtesy interviews done because someone needs to know that the candidate they championed got every consideration before being wait listed).

That said, there are degrees of admissibility -- Prior to interview we might place someone with a 3.95/520 and a year of NIH research ahead of someone with a 3.85/515, minimal research experience and a little involvement with Special Olympics although both are excellent candidates on paper. After meeting them, the former might fall down in the ranking due to being robotic or arrogant while the latter might rise to the top as an exceptionally warm, compassionate and intellectually curious candidate. Or the former might be warm and intellectually curious while the latter is somewhat stilted and rehearsed with an inability to think on their feet. That's why we do interviews and that is why even very strong candidates might be wait listed or rejected after interview.

Just to be clear: If I am a urm with below avg stats for a school and an ad com member is advocating for me by writing a rec letter, I can expect a courtesy interview and a polite waitlist? Is that usually how that pans out?

 

[710118]

Your frame of reference for this is incorrect. There are a finite number of interview slots, followed by a finite number of acceptances, for a finite number of seats supported by a flexible wait list. Each application is evaluated and scored/classified. These application scores are essentially your interview priority. With 5000+ applications at any individual school and only perhaps 1000 interview slots, 80% of applications must be rejected prior to II. Scoring and classification is continued in interviews, along with comments. Socially inept is actually a minor factor. Negative factors could be in inability to express or articulate in content or process characteristics that an interviewer is looking for to make a good physician. This doesnt mean that there is one kind of physician they are looking for or one set of attributes across all candidates. It is how you expressed your background, motivation, commitment, achievement, intellectual ability/curiosity, determination, empathy, interpersonal skills, etc. I may see a very service oriented person with a strong background working in marginalized populations along with a heavily research oriented candidate. Both may make outstanding physicians in different context. Both may show excellent ability or evidence in all areas. Both may score high by all interviewers. I may see very strong paper candidates who interview adequately. I may see less-solid paper candidates who interview fantastically.

After interviews, they may translate your interview performance into classification or scores and "add" it to your paper score. So you are fully evaluated before you are reviewed by adcom for acceptance decision. Perhaps a cutoff below a set number will get you recommended for rejected, a cutoff above a certain number will get you recommended for acceptance. the remaining middle set will get more discussion or review perhaps some will WL, others "held" for future reconsideration. Perhaps the adcom has a system where 75% present are required to admit or to reject. Later meetings will continually balance all this.

Let me also add that the only LCME requirement is that a defined adcom must approve a candidate for acceptance. As I said before 80% of applications are rejected pre II so in many ways this is negative process looking to eliminate candidates. This may continue thru interview where any individual interviewer may have policy to reject a candidate.

Lastly, the best way to look at this is an Olympic class competition. In the Decathlon which has 10 track and field events, while you have competitors next to you, you are looking to gain points. It is only at the end, with the tally of points, do you get a winner. Or perhaps in a downhill ski event where 20 outstanding skiers may go down the course, all were good, but only the top 3 get medals, maybe just by a fraction of a second

Thanks for the great response. You mentioned that applicants are interviewed by priority (i.e, the best candidates are interviewed first). Would you expect therefore, that the first set of candidates interviewed are generally admitted at a higher rate than the applicants interviewed later in the year? Take some top 10 school for instance that has a 25% acceptance rate for candidates who are interviewed. Are the candidates interviewed in September actually admitted at a 40 percent rate whereas those interviewed in Jan are admitted at a 10 percent rate? Or, are all candidates, in general, admitted at the same 25 percent rate regardless of when they interview?

 

[calipremed5768]

Would so called “courtesy interview” be given to somebody without a strong chance to somebody who the premed committee from an undergrad with a top med school affiliated so their undergrads are viewed more favorably. Ex. Would Harvard med school give a “courtesy interview” to somebody who went to Stanford and got a good committee letter so Harvard undergrads are looked at more favorably by Stanford med school?

 

[peanuttbuttah]

Would so called “courtesy interview” be given to somebody without a strong chance to somebody who the premed committee from an undergrad with a top med school affiliated so their undergrads are viewed more favorably. Ex. Would Harvard med school give a “courtesy interview” to somebody who went to Stanford and got a good committee letter so Harvard undergrads are looked at more favorably by Stanford med school?

this is making my head spin.

99% of the time, the good candidates get interviews. perform well at your interview and hope it works out.

 

[LizzyM]

Thanks for the great response. You mentioned that applicants are interviewed by priority (i.e, the best candidates are interviewed first). Would you expect therefore, that the first set of candidates interviewed are generally admitted at a higher rate than the applicants interviewed later in the year? Take some top 10 school for instance that has a 25% acceptance rate for candidates who are interviewed. Are the candidates interviewed in September actually admitted at a 40 percent rate whereas those interviewed in Jan are admitted at a 10 percent rate? Or, are all candidates, in general, admitted at the same 25 percent rate regardless of when they interview?

Some schools will hold all offers until the end and rank all the candidates and take the top x%. If it turns out that the proportion who interviewed earlier are more likely to get an offer, well, there are a lot of reasons why that could happen but it doesn't mean that those who interviewed later were at any kind of disadvantage. Likewise, if a school makes some offers early but holds many offers until the end to figure out how the mushy middle plays out, then it doesn't matter when you interview, your chances of getting an offer are going to be the same.

Would so called “courtesy interview” be given to somebody without a strong chance to somebody who the premed committee from an undergrad with a top med school affiliated so their undergrads are viewed more favorably. Ex. Would Harvard med school give a “courtesy interview” to somebody who went to Stanford and got a good committee letter so Harvard undergrads are looked at more favorably by Stanford med school?

It does not work that way.

A courtesy interview is most likely if your grandfather is a trustee of the university or your uncle is an alumnus who donated $200,000 at his 25 year reunion or your parent is a department chair in the medical school. It is a courtesy to a "VIP" that the candidate they have a special interest in has been given every consideration before being "not admitted".

 

[710118]

Some schools will hold all offers until the end and rank all the candidates and take the top x%. If it turns out that the proportion who interviewed earlier are more likely to get an offer, well, there are a lot of reasons why that could happen but it doesn't mean that those who interviewed later were at any kind of disadvantage. Likewise, if a school makes some offers early but holds many offers until the end to figure out how the mushy middle plays out, then it doesn't matter when you interview, your chances of getting an offer are going to be the same.



It does not work that way.

A courtesy interview is most likely if your grandfather is a trustee of the university or your uncle is an alumnus who donated $200,000 at his 25 year reunion or your parent is a department chair in the medical school. It is a courtesy to a "VIP" that the candidate they have a special interest in has been given every consideration before being "not admitted".

Hi Lizzy. Thanks for the response. I am sure many schools do things differently and the process may be more or less fair to the candidate compared when they interview. But even if they rank all the candidates at the end and compare them so its fair, shouldn't the people who interviewed earlier be getting in at a higher rate, not because the process is unfair, but because they were better candidates so thats why they were interviewed earlier. Like if I interview in September, is it more likely that my interview group will contain my classmates if I matriculate than if I interview in Jan?

 

[LizzyM]

Not necessarily. Sometimes a really great applicant applies later due to some extraordinary circumstances, or chooses to interview later due to a very full schedule. Also, those who get offers early in the cycle may not matriculate because they choose to matriculate at a different school.

Don't obscess about this; it is trivial and inconsequential.

 

[Moko]

are we not to believe the staircase model of admissions?

Suppose that the 3.85/520 is normal during the interview. They are not exceptionally bad but they are also not exceptionally good. Would this candidate likely get the bump over the 3.85/515 even if the latter is exceptionally good at the interview?

By getting an interview, the school is essentially saying that you meet the requirements needed to do well academically at the school. All else being equal though, those with weaker applications still need to impress more during the interview in order have the same chance of getting an acceptance; the field is not completely level (at least at my school). To use an extreme, a 4.0/520, Rhodes scholar, Nobel prize winner, is almost definitely going to get in provided that they smile and don't say anything ridiculous. However that same person may still be waitlisted if they fail to meet the minimum "requirements" expected during the interview.

 

[907914]

It also why at this point I do not deal with parents

I know I say this way too often across these forums...but it always surprises be how involved the parents are in the lives of their adult children to the massive detriment of their ADULT children. Maybe it is more common of an occurrence than I am aware of as I didn’t hop on the Dr. train until I was 19 and didn’t officially start undergrad until 22...

 

[Goro]

Suppose that the 3.85/520 is normal during the interview. They are not exceptionally bad but they are also not exceptionally good. Would this candidate likely get the bump over the 3.85/515 even if the latter is exceptionally good at the interview?

Is it the formers spot to lose and the latters spot to gain? Does the former just "not need to be bad" while the latter needs to be above and beyond?

Just a reminder, the two candidates are not interviewing for one seat.

All seats are for the interviewees to lose. I agree that there are times where people do have to do a better job of wowing us/selling themselves.

 

[907914]

Just a reminder, the two candidates are not interviewing for one seat.

All seats are for the interviewees to lose. I agree that there are times where people do have to do a better job of wowing us/selling themselves.

What happens if a candidate is interviewed later in the cycle that they like more than people already offered acceptances, but they have very few A’s left to give out? Is this where early interviews really matter is post-October 15?

 

[907914]

Schools can like everybody but they know they have to be judicious with acceptance. And they also know they control the flow. Except for that 5% or less superstar, I wont give out early acceptance and just wait

What do you look for in considering who is a superstar?

 

[710118]

Schools can like everybody but they know they have to be judicious with acceptance. And they also know they control the flow. Except for that 5% or less superstar, I wont give out early acceptance and just wait

So is it pretty common for non-rolling schools to review everybody who interviewed at the end once all scores are given or do some schools have adcoms meet weekly to discuss everybody who interviewed the previous week? Also, this might be hard to answer but in general, can you tell within a few min of meeting someone if you will recommend them or does it sometimes take an hour of speaking with them to come to a decision?

 

[LizzyM]

So is it pretty common for non-rolling schools to review everybody who interviewed at the end once all scores are given or do some schools have adcoms meet weekly to discuss everybody who interviewed the previous week? Also, this might be hard to answer but in general, can you tell within a few min of meeting someone if you will recommend them or does it sometimes take an hour of speaking with them to come to a decision?

At many schools you are going to have more than one interview. The interviewers may come to different conclusions. This can even happen when the interview is with more than one interviewer so both were in the room and observed the same interaction. So, the adcom has some interesting data to incorporate into the overall assessment of the candidate.

Some interviewers write up their impressions within 10 minutes of the interview's end. Others like to take their time and reflect on the applicant's responses before putting something in writing.

Adcoms are going to meet periodically (maybe not once a week) to review the completed files (including interview reports -- which can take some time to write up, even when we are told to turn them around within hours of the interview). Some applicants will be a slam dunk for admission (perfect in every way and blew away the interviewers). Some applicants will have done something so hideous that it requires little discussion (being rude and condescending to a low level staffer is unusual but the sort of thing that will kill your chances) and then there will be those situations where one interviewer had serious doubts about the applicant's suitability while the other interviewer thougth that the applicant was quite nice and a good fit. Those situations require a thorough discussion.

 

[Goro]

I know I say this way too often across these forums...but it always surprises be how involved the parents are in the lives of their adult children to the massive detriment of their ADULT children. Maybe it is more common of an occurrence than I am aware of as I didn’t hop on the Dr. train until I was 19 and didn’t officially start undergrad until 22...

Agreed. Never, ever underestimate the damage that Tiger Parents can do to their kids.

Our pal @gyngyn has talked about one dad who literally pushed his kid into the interview room. Image how that went over.

 

[gyngyn]

Our pal @gyngyn has talked about one dad who literally pushed his kid into the interview room. Image how that went over.

I wish I could get that picture out of my mind's eye. Poor kid.

Every year parents sign their kids in, though.
One dad refused to leave when it was time for interviews.

 

[710118]

Just reading your post I recommend to reject..... couldn't resist

Virtually all schools, rolling and non-rolling operate the same way
1) All schools are rolling when it comes to the finite number of interview slots being given out. It is not when your are interviewed that would possibly, (I said possibly) indicate a higher interest, it when you are invited.
2) At the vast majority schools, rolling and non-rolling, almost immediately, interviewers will write their summaries, and usually, there will be some meeting at some level to discuss the most recent group of interviewees. However, this can be anything from Admissions Staff simply adding comments and scores to overall files, a sub-team (team means without voting/decision power) of either just the interviewers or the team responsible for that group of applicants, an adcom subcommittee (committee means with voting/decision power)
3) However it is done in #2, both rolling and non-rolling, a list of interviewed candidates is constantly being shuffled in some sequence, usually large groups such as 1 thru 5 from highest to lowest. At rolling schools they may offer acceptances to a portion of the top group after each meeting. At non-rolling they simply wait to announce (this is really the only difference between rolling and non rolling)
4) I can tell at the start if I like somebody or not, however that may not be however how I end of review. I have had lots of interviewee fumble in the first few minutes usually of nerves but then they do well. Interviewing is what I have done the least in my career.

Thank you for such a thorough post!

Very interesting indeed. So lets say I submit all my apps in July. Some schools invite me for an interview at the end of July, some in august, some in December. Is it safe to assume that the school that invited me in July is "more interested" in my application than the school that invited me in October? I know apps are not necessarily read in the order they are received. Barring any major fumbles in the interview, am I more likely to get an acceptance to the school that invited me to interview in July whereas I might have to really blow away the interviewers if they invited me in December?

I have read somewhere on SDN about an interviewer commenting to an applicant something along the lines of "wow, you are interviewing on the first day. You must be an extraordinary candidate or the son of a board of trustee member"

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Its when they show up at interview day that really gets to me....No, I am not joking

Had it happen to me too!! Wait, I went on an interview with my son. Was a 6 hr drive and rode along. Hung out in the hospital with old attendings whom I trained under. Didnt talk to anyone in admissions. Turned out to be a courtesy interview, so dont believe the propaganda the alumni association feeds you. Good news is he got in elsewhere and now I dont have to send thousands to the alma mater anymore.

 

[deleted987519]

Thank you for such a thorough post!

Very interesting indeed. So lets say I submit all my apps in July. Some schools invite me for an interview at the end of July, some in august, some in December. Is it safe to assume that the school that invited me in July is "more interested" in my application than the school that invited me in October? I know apps are not necessarily read in the order they are received. Barring any major fumbles in the interview, am I more likely to get an acceptance to the school that invited me to interview in July whereas I might have to really blow away the interviewers if they invited me in December?

I have read somewhere on SDN about an interviewer commenting to an applicant something along the lines of "wow, you are interviewing on the first day. You must be an extraordinary candidate or the son of a board of trustee member"

I feel like the same question has been asked in 100 different ways on this thread - - just do your best at the interviews, my friend. It is not worth speculating over whether the date you're invited matters so much...

 

[Moko]

I have read somewhere on SDN about an interviewer commenting to an applicant something along the lines of "wow, you are interviewing on the first day. You must be an extraordinary candidate or the son of a board of trustee member"

Sometimes things are said to see how applicants respond.

 

[710118]

I feel like the same question has been asked in 100 different ways on this thread - - just do your best at the interviews, my friend. It is not worth speculating over whether the date you're invited matters so much...

I understand interview performance is likely the deciding factor for me or anyone else interviewing. I am just curious about the process. I appreciate all the adcoms who took/take the time to answer my insanely neurotic pre med questions!

 

[LizzyM]

There are application readers who get in over their heads, or who have something come up such that they are not able to make their reviews in a timely manner. This can mean you aren't reviewed and recommended for interview as quickly as you'd like and people who had better luck of the draw get reviewed and recommended by a different reader ahead of you. It all works out in the end but you really can't read anything into getting a later interview at one place than you would have expected.

 

[907914]

There are application readers who get in over their heads, or who have something come up such that they are not able to make their reviews in a timely manner. This can mean you aren't reviewed and recommended for interview as quickly as you'd like and people who had better luck of the draw get reviewed and recommended by a different reader ahead of you. It all works out in the end but you really can't read anything into getting a later interview at one place than you would have expected.

Do reviewers google candidates before or after interview?

 

[Goro]

Do reviewers google candidates before or after interview?

I wouldn't waste my time doing that. I've never once heard my Adcom colleagues doing it either.

I will look up PubMed articles if candidates write that they have a publication.

 

[907914]

I wouldn't waste my time doing that. I've never once heard my Adcom colleagues doing it either.

I will look up PubMed articles if candidates write that they have a publication.

IDK....I have one video on youtube that didn't have any views for 3 years until these last two weeks and a linked in account with the same stats....

 

[Goro]

IDK....I have one video on youtube that didn't have any views for 3 years until these last two weeks and a linked in account with the same stats....

Admissions Deans and their staff have to do due diligence.

 

[LizzyM]

IDK....I have one video on youtube that didn't have any views for 3 years until these last two weeks and a linked in account with the same stats....

It can happen. If you provide a link, it is fair game. If there is some doubt about something in your application, a look at your LinkedIn can confirm or refute what you've listed. It may not be common but it isn't out of the question.

 

[907914]

It can happen. If you provide a link, it is fair game. If there is some doubt about something in your application, a look at your LinkedIn can confirm or refute what you've listed. It may not be common but it isn't out of the question.

I didn’t provide a link because y’all told me no Sméagol voice. But they found me still.

 

[KnightDoc]

to add, 11% of 3.8+GPA/517+ dont get in. Bad interview, no social skills, maybe arrogant and entitled, wrong school list, too few schools, etc.

BTW, every year I get applicants (usually their parents) wanting to help little Johnny or Janie get into Harvard, Yale, Hopkins, Standford and Mayo. Only schools they really want to go to because they really only want to be a Neurosurgeon. And I always tell them, if there is only where you want to go then apply only there. It is amazing how a cycle of no interviews will make an applicant reconsider their options. There are also people who say that but apply to a wide array of schools and get in to another one, maybe their state school. But then they say maybe if I add another year of research and reapply, I will get into Harvard. Hence why I tell them only apply to a school you want. It also why at this point I do not deal with parents