How do schools process interviews

[anfleisch]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So obviously we have heard that interviewers score the interview and write out notes on the interview. Student interviews would do something similar. But is the adcom just mostly using the limited information from a score from the interview or is there more to it. Does the interviewer usually sit on the adcom and speak about you at the meeting? If this is so, wouldn't the interviewer most likely champion the candidates they liked during the interviews? This would have to make the interview more important, since if an interviewer stands up and votes yes for you, they have had the most contact and I'd imagine other adcom would follow their lead. If the interview just leads to a score (like 1-5), only really amazing or lousy interviews would really mean anything to separate you from the pack. I know LizzyM has explained the process with A-F grades, but I don't know if she was speaking literally or saying A is an amazing interview and not just a letter grade as the only indicating factor.

Basically, how in depth do they get with the interview or is it just based on the interviewers impression simplified into a score?

 

[LizzyM]

I have heard that some schools have the person who did the interview speak to the adcom members who mentally process all the information they have: application, letters, secondary and this "oral report". Other schools have the interviewer write a narrative which may or may not include a "bottom line" score from A to F or 1 to 5 or 1 to 10 or whatever or a recommendation: among the best, very good, acceptable, acceptable but....,and unacceptable.
Other schools have a scale (a horizontal line) and you make an x along the line from very bad to very good on each characteristic (communications, professionalism, etc) and write comments about the characteristic.

The key, for me, is the narrative in addition with the bottom line. One person's acceptable is another's "very good" and sometimes you need to "consider the source".

I hope this helps.

 

[anfleisch]

Is the interviewer ever a voting member of the adcom? If so, wouldn't this be an overwhelming advantage after a positive interview?

 

[J ROD]

Is the interviewer ever a voting member of the adcom? If so, wouldn't this be an overwhelming advantage after a positive interview?

Both of my interviewers were....they reported back to the full committee on behalf on the app...basically they were like my attorney

I guess they liked me because I got in!!

I have no clue how it is scored. I plan to get onto our admin committee when I am a 4th yr...

 

[wanderer]

The key, for me, is the narrative in addition with the bottom line. One person's acceptable is another's "very good" and sometimes you need to "consider the source".

Is there any sort of "correction factor" that is based upon the interviewer's personality or prior evaluations? For example if the interviewer/evaluator is never enthusiastic about anyone is that taken into account?

 

[LizzyM]

Is there any sort of "correction factor" that is based upon the interviewer's personality or prior evaluations? For example if the interviewer/evaluator is never enthusiastic about anyone is that taken into account?

Sadly, it more often goes the other way... we have a few rookies who love everyone.

 

[TexasPrincess]

One of the adcom told me at my interview last Friday that they do take into account who interviews you.

 

[sleepy425]

Sadly, it more often goes the other way... we have a few rookies who love everyone.

haha, it's so hard to be critical though. Have you found that your interviewers become more effective at distinguishing between applicants as they get more experience? I always get nervous when I write up a few evaluations and I give them all very high scores, but I've only just started...

 

[Slowpoke]

hi sleepy425,

need some dishes to be washed? how about your laundry?

haha

 

[sleepy425]

hi sleepy425,

need some dishes to be washed? how about your laundry?

haha

laundry please

 

[LizzyM]

haha, it's so hard to be critical though. Have you found that your interviewers become more effective at distinguishing between applicants as they get more experience? I always get nervous when I write up a few evaluations and I give them all very high scores, but I've only just started...

Yes, one person was spoken too about generous evaluations in a rookie year and has made a 180. We also get more comfortable asking questions.