How do you know if an interview went well? And how much does it matter?

[jetsfan1234]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Had my first MD interview recently and I am really unsure how it went. Thought it was okay at the time, now I'm replaying it in my head and I'm not sure. There were definitely some things I wish I had brought up, and I feel like some of my answers were lame. But I'm also not sure how much the interview even matters. Thoughts?

 

[Mr Avante]

Had my first MD interview recently and I am really unsure how it went. Thought it was okay at the time, now I'm replaying it in my head and I'm not sure. There were definitely some things I wish I had brought up, and I feel like some of my answers were lame. But I'm also not sure how much the interview even matters. Thoughts?

The interview is key

 

[QuantumJ]

I've read enough of these forums to see those who felt they did poorly and got accepted to those who thought they did really well and were rejected. Besides obviously bombing it I really don't think you can tell how it went.

 

[osprey099]

Had my first MD interview recently and I am really unsure how it went. Thought it was okay at the time, now I'm replaying it in my head and I'm not sure. There were definitely some things I wish I had brought up, and I feel like some of my answers were lame. But I'm also not sure how much the interview even matters. Thoughts?

Look at the list in this article. Interview feedback becomes most important along with your LORs.

 

[mcloaf]

Interviews are very important, but there's really no way to know how well you did and to what degree that will end up influencing the eventual outcome of your application. So basically try not to worry about it and hope for the best.

 

[newborn11]

IMHO, acceptance phone calls are the best indicators of "how well" an interview went.

 

[SN12357]

Had my first MD interview recently and I am really unsure how it went. Thought it was okay at the time, now I'm replaying it in my head and I'm not sure. There were definitely some things I wish I had brought up, and I feel like some of my answers were lame. But I'm also not sure how much the interview even matters. Thoughts?

Read through the 'worst interview answers' thread. It is both hilarious and highly illustrative of the fact that feeling an interview went well or poorly is not necessarily predictive of acceptance.

Like with applications, it's best not to stew over things you can't change, unless it's to improve your answers for the next interview.

The interview does matter a lot, though. It has consistently been rated as very important by schools when they are asked how they choose applicants.

 

[pyrrion89]

the fact that feeling an interview went well or poorly is not necessarily predictive of acceptance.

Yes. And this is because, while the interview is important, not every interviewee is at the same height on the totem pole going into the interview. So people who did poorly ended up getting in (because they had great stats, EC's, whatever) despite their interview, and people who did well did not get in (because how far can an interview really lift you on the pole if you started rock-bottom?).

People often chalk up a rejection to a dumb interview comment. While it is possible that is the reason, it seems far more likely that what really influenced the rejection decision was the entire application.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

I'm dubious about how much of an impact the interview has your chances. While it's true that schools consistently it rank it as one of the most important factors, adcom members on these forums have said that in reality just about everyone does well on the interview and that it's impossible to separate people into groups just based off of interview performance. It makes logical sense too, considering the questions are (usually) easy and most people are capable of performing well in an interview. Furthermore, most med school interviews are extremely short; only 20-60 minutes per interview, and you usually don't have very many of them. In MSTP admissions which often have upwards of six interviews spread over 2-3 days, the adcom members on the MSTP forum have still said that the interview is mostly useless for making acceptance decisions. Again, that's logical. You can't get to know a person in the space of 20-60 minutes, especially in a setting where everyone is on guard and trying to impress you.

IMO the interview is only ranked most important by schools because if you bomb it there's no way you're getting accepted. However, doing well on it does virtually nothing to help your chances. As long as you perform acceptably on the interview, the school just goes right back to making its decisions based on pre-interview information. So basically the interview can only hurt you.

 

[pyrrion89]

adcom members on these forums have said that in reality just about everyone does well on the interview

Really? I heard that there is a range of performance. But I do think you're mainly right. I also think that it's easier to do well on an interview if you're very well-accomplished. You have more material to discuss and you come off as more well-rounded. In this sense the interview adds weight to the students' EC's when it comes time for a holistic, final review.

 

[BlueLabel]

I'm dubious about how much of an impact the interview has your chances. While it's true that schools consistently it rank it as one of the most important factors, adcom members on these forums have said that in reality just about everyone does well on the interview and that it's impossible to separate people into groups just based off of interview performance. It makes logical sense too, considering the questions are (usually) easy and most people are capable of performing well in an interview. Furthermore, most med school interviews are extremely short; only 20-60 minutes per interview, and you usually don't have very many of them. In MSTP admissions which often have upwards of six interviews spread over 2-3 days, the adcom members on the MSTP forum have still said that the interview is mostly useless for making acceptance decisions. Again, that's logical. You can't get to know a person in the space of 20-60 minutes, especially in a setting where everyone is on guard and trying to impress you.

IMO the interview is only ranked most important by schools because if you bomb it there's no way you're getting accepted. However, doing well on it does virtually nothing to help your chances. As long as you perform acceptably on the interview, the school just goes right back to making its decisions based on pre-interview information. So basically the interview can only hurt you.

Kind of makes me wonder, what's the point of it then? My dad thinks the interview only exists to add to the mystique of the process. Not sure if it's quite that cynical, but I think there's a grain of truth in there somewhere.

 

[Dbate]

I don't understand why people feel the need to speculate about this topic, when another poster earlier linked to a document that offered verifiable evidence on the impact of the interview.


It is the most important factor in determining an acceptance. Just look at the document linked to above.

 

[Euxox]

I don't understand why people feel the need to speculate about this topic, when another poster earlier linked to a document that offered verifiable evidence on the impact of the interview.


It is the most important factor in determining an acceptance. Just look at the document linked to above.

That's not evidence that the interview is the most important factor. It's evidence that adcoms think that they weigh it as the most important factor. Thought and action often differ.

 

[osprey099]

That's not evidence that the interview is the most important factor. It's evidence that adcoms think that they weigh it as the most important factor. Thought and action often differ.

Speculating how adcoms think or act is a waste of time. You would need some serious mind reading abilities to get real results.

 

[Dbate]

That's not evidence that the interview is the most important factor. It's evidence that adcoms think that they weigh it as the most important factor. Thought and action often differ.

So are you suggesting that the 113 medical schools polled by the AAMC are in denial of their actions?

But, you, a random person* --that has never been on a medical admissions committee--actually knows how they really behave?


*Note: I mean this in a descriptive sense, not as an insult. It will sound like an insult though. But I don't intend it that way.


Or are you going to reference the comments made by a few adcom members on this site? Even if their statements are true, they are not in anyway representative of the vast majority of med schools. Whereas the 113 med schools that participated in the survey are.

 

[Euxox]

Speculating how adcoms think or act is a waste of time. You would need some serious mind reading abilities to get real results.

Yes, exactly, that is what I was getting at. The only definitive measurement of the importance of the interview would be data that compares post-interview scores (some med schools give each interviewee a numeric score immediately after the interview) to acceptance numbers.

 

[mcloaf]

Kind of makes me wonder, what's the point of it then? My dad thinks the interview only exists to add to the mystique of the process. Not sure if it's quite that cynical, but I think there's a grain of truth in there somewhere.

Yes, medical schools across the country spend many thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of admissions employee work to add mystique.










Or because it's a critical (though limited) opportunity to actually meet in person the people who could possibly represent "X school of medicine" for the rest of their careers.

 

[BlueLabel]

Yes, medical schools across the country spend many thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of admissions employee work to add mystique.










Or because it's a critical (though limited) opportunity to actually meet in person the people who could possibly represent "X school of medicine" for the rest of their careers.

You're right, I guess it's easy to lose perspective when you're in the middle of it.

 

[Ismet]

Really? I heard that there is a range of performance. But I do think you're mainly right. I also think that it's easier to do well on an interview if you're very well-accomplished. You have more material to discuss and you come off as more well-rounded. In this sense the interview adds weight to the students' EC's when it comes time for a holistic, final review.

Performance in an interview isn't based on how stellar your resume is. For an open file interview, you can maybe give more description about some of the activities, but the interviewer already has a good idea of what you've done and how well-rounded you are. Even for a closed file interview, you would have to talk about some of your meaningful activities, but the main part of the interview is to assess you as a person. How you interact, how you overcome stress and obstacles, your empathy, the qualities that make you an individual, your fit for the school, etc. That's something the adcom can't necessarily do from looking at AMCAS.

Granted I've only given like 20-ish real + mock interviews, so I have a very limited pool for reference compared to the faculty members on here, but so far I think everyone I interviewed generally performed very well.

 

[Euxox]

.

 

[Euxox]

But, you, a random person* --that have never been on a medical admissions committee--actually knows how they really behave?

If you reread my post, you'll see that I never gave an opinion one way or the other. I don't claim to know anything about how important interviews are.

So are you suggesting that the 113 medical schools polled by the AAMC are in denial of their actions?

No, denial implies that they know they are wrong, but they choose to cover it up. I am saying that adcom members may think that they value the interview more highly than they actually do. People aren't very good at judging things about themselves (such as how much they value one thing over another), and this is a well-documented phenomenon.

Anyway, this is starting to delve into semantics, and that is not really the point. I was just trying to say that a survey of medical colleges is not necessarily a definitive answer. There is still room for debate.

 

[mcloaf]

You're right, I guess it's easy to lose perspective when you're in the middle of it.

No worries, it happens to everybody I think.


It's just funny seeing the other side now and realizing that what I thought was a cold and cynical process as an applicant is really a whole lot of earnest work by a few people trying to do their best for their school and the people applying. I don't know if it's that way everywhere, but in the stress of the application process I think a lot of misplaced frustration and anger goes in the direction of relatively blameless admissions folks.

That being said, they're definitely not all good (looking at you, Jalby).

 

[Spinach Dip]

So are you suggesting that the 113 medical schools polled by the AAMC are in denial of their actions?

But, you, a random person* --that have never been on a medical admissions committee--actually knows how they really behave?

That's exactly how it works.

 

[Goro]

The interview will make or break your acceptance.

Try not to overthink about it...you had one, and you'll probably get more. What's done is done. It actually takes talent to bomb an interview. Just be yourself and speak from the heart.

One piece of advice: do NOT babble like an idiot if you're brain is struggling for an answer.

Had my first MD interview recently and I am really unsure how it went. Thought it was okay at the time, now I'm replaying it in my head and I'm not sure. There were definitely some things I wish I had brought up, and I feel like some of my answers were lame. But I'm also not sure how much the interview even matters. Thoughts?

 

[circulus vitios]

Kind of makes me wonder, what's the point of it then? My dad thinks the interview only exists to add to the mystique of the process. Not sure if it's quite that cynical, but I think there's a grain of truth in there somewhere.

It's just another annoying hoop to jump through. I've been to two interviews and aside from the school tours, everything else should have been replaced with a Skype/Skype Video chat and an e-mail with PowerPoint slides. It would have saved me thousands of dollars in flights/hotels/transportation/time off work.

Or because it's a critical (though limited) opportunity to actually meet in person the people who could possibly represent "X school of medicine" for the rest of their careers.

Yeah man, you can totally get a good feel for someone in a contrived and inherently stressful 20 minute meeting. I mean there are very few terrible doctors out there and it's not like obviously ****ed up people -- hello Philip Markoff, hello Boston U adcom members -- have faked their way through these supposedly valuable and insightful interviews.

 

[mcloaf]

It's just another annoying hoop to jump through. I've been to two interviews and aside from the school tours, everything else should have been replaced with a Skype/Skype Video chat and an e-mail with PowerPoint slides. It would have saved me thousands of dollars in flights/hotels/transportation/time off work.



Yeah man, you can totally get a good feel for someone in a contrived and inherently stressful 20 minute meeting. I mean there are very few terrible doctors out there and it's not like obviously ****ed up people -- hello Philip Markoff, hello Boston U adcom members -- have faked their way through these supposedly valuable and insightful interviews.

Lol dude. I know you think every step of the admissions pathway was individually designed to annoy and thwart you, but it's not the case.

Nobody said the system was ideal, but one interview is better than no interview.

 

[sazerac]

I really don't think you can tell. On the interviewee side, I totally nailed a few interviews and got rejected, while I got accepted after some very meh interviews.

I have also interviewed people for jobs, and now I interview people for medical school. Sometimes an incompetent or otherwise inappropriate candidate interviews with me. I'm always smiling and supportive even when I know I will rip them a new one in the interview feedback, which guarantees a rejection.

 

[circulus vitios]

Lol dude. I know you think every step of the admissions pathway was individually designed to annoy and thwart you, but it's not the case.

Nobody said the system was ideal, but one interview is better than no interview.

How often do applicants put on a bull**** facade of compassion and altruism with their 'significant volunteering experience,' medical volunteering vacations, non-profit startups, etc. that they promptly discontinue after acceptance into medical school. How often do we see threads on interview coaching? How often do we see posts in the med student/resident forums about colleagues -- people who have made it past the interview -- who have major personality flaws. What is the purpose of application building and interviewing if it can be manipulated?

I'd really like to know why phone/skype/skype video interviews aren't given consideration, too.

 

[volcomx]

How often do applicants put on a bull**** facade of compassion and altruism with their 'significant volunteering experience,' medical volunteering vacations, non-profit startups, etc. that they promptly discontinue after acceptance into medical school. How often do we see threads on interview coaching? How often do we see posts in the med student/resident forums about colleagues -- people who have made it past the interview -- who have major personality flaws. What is the purpose of application building and interviewing if it can be manipulated?

I'd really like to know why phone/skype/skype video interviews aren't given consideration, too.

What really gets me going is the MCAT. I mean, what is it even measuring? And those premeds who study for it? Stupidity masked by a facade of intellect from hundreds of hours of studying. And GPA? How often do we see premeds gunning for As only to enter a pass/fail medical school?

Adcoms should just let anyone in if they say they are interested and if they say they are smart enough, right?

Dude, there's no easy way to assess applicants. It's a competition. Some people squeeze through the filters. At least in an interview you can see the applicant face to face. At least the blatant psychopaths can be screened out

 

[skab]

I really don't think you can tell. On the interviewee side, I totally nailed a few interviews and got rejected, while I got accepted after some very meh interviews.

I have also interviewed people for jobs, and now I interview people for medical school. Sometimes an incompetent or otherwise inappropriate candidate interviews with me. I'm always smiling and supportive even when I know I will rip them a new one in the interview feedback, which guarantees a rejection.

Don't fake it with me if I get you for Tulane!! And I'll do my best to not be incompetent, inappropriate and inadequate