How important are interviews? Any correlation between good interviews, acceptances?

Discover Your Odds of Getting into Medical School
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
G

gobears

Senior Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
210
Reaction score
0
I've heard that a lot of interviewers make their decision about you within the first 2 minutes of your interview. I've also heard that the schools know whether or not they want you prior to the actual interview and that the interview is only there to weed out the weirdos. Yet another thing I've heard is that the interview is an important factor in one's application.

Okay, so I've heard a bunch of varying rumors and opinions. What do you folks think? Does this differ by school? Does this differ by interviewer? Does this differ by the relative strength of your app?

For those of you who have gotten both favorable results (acceptances) and undesirable results (waitlists/rejections), were you able to tell whether or not you were going to get that result based on how well your interview went?
Members don't see this ad.
 
In my experience: there's little to no correlation. My best interview- haven't heard in 4 months and expecting a waitlist any day. My worst one- accepted 9 days later. Those were the ones I had a strong "feeling" about, whatever that means. --Trek
 
it totally depends on the school. some schools (stanford) have the interviewer just gauge your personality and score you based on a series of predetermined questions (ie- how well does he know his research) and the school only invites you to an interview if the rest of your app is scored high enough to reach the threshold of acceptance score with an ideal interview.

other schools (columbia) just have you meet with the guy that presents you to the committee. so after your meeting there he/she writes an evaluation of your application and just uses the interview as a background context to assess and interpret your application. from what i've heard and seen, these interviews count less.

-again, it totally depends on the school, but i have heard that if your interviewer doesn't like you, forget it.

-a friend of mine was told by an admissions director "no school is gonna have the balls to invite you across the country to bust your balls. so you have two basic types of interviews. in the first, the "sacoya" interview, the guy reads your app and knows you're not qualified so he looks at it and is like "oh so you went to camp sacoya, my son went to camp sacoya," and you shoot the **** for 30 minutes in a pleasant conversation, leave, and he proceeds to reject you based on his thinking you underqualified. in the second interview or stress interview, the guy knows you are qualified, so he tries to bust your chops and see if he can find a weak spot."

so according to this guy, if you get a stress interview, it's a good thing. he also said that in his 20 years or whatever, every student that has ever asked to be reinterviewed has gotten a spectacular interview evaluation.

-again, you never know and you can't do anything about it now, so just dont regret anything and stop thinking/worrying about it. easier said than done.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
That's really interesting Choker. I've never thought of it that way. I talked to an admissions director who told me an opposing viewpoint about "shoot the ****" interviews. She told me that when an interview is just conversation, the interviewer already knows he/she likes you.

Personally, my easiest interview turned into an acceptance. We just talked about football for about 15 minutes. He never even asked me why I wanted to be a doctor.

On the other hand, I had a longer interview that I thought was a sort of "shoot the ****" type. As I was leaving, the interviewer told me that he hopes to see me there next year. It's been 2 months now and I've gotten no word from them.
 
I don't necessarily think that there's a "rule of thumb," or a correlation per se. I received acceptances from two schools that stood at completely opposite ends of the spectrum as far as interviews were concerned. One was my absolute best interview, that lasted an hour & 1/2 simply because it was such a great conversation...the other was my worst, an all-out stress interview that had me seething.

Of course, this is purely anecdotal & subjective; I haven't exactly done research on the subject. :)
 
I interviewed at the Univesity of Washington and ended up on the same flight as my interviewers on the way home. They informed me that I got the top interview score that day but the end result - waitlist then rejection. Go figure - I can't make any sense of the whole process.
 
So you guys think it is impossible to "read" an interviewer, i.e. judge how an interview is going based on interviewer's facial expressions and responses?

My true question however is this: I had a student interviewer, who sits on the adcom. She was super intelligent and we had v. similar experiences/interests. In the beginning of the interview I thought I had her, she was very enthusiastic and seemed interested, but by the middle of the 1.25 hours, she appeared less positive. To top it off, I sent her a thank-you note (not a generic one, but something I really thought about) via e-mail, and all she sent back was (effectively), "yeah, good luck with everything." Do you think this is a bad sign? I know the only way to tell will be to wait till their damn non-rolling decision is made, but I can't stop obsessing. It is by far my first choice school... Argh... Also, is there anything to do at this point to rectify a possibly bad interview?

Sorry for venting guys...
 
So far for me, the correlation is perfect. Great interviews at Albany : acceptance. So-so interviews at Tulane: waitlist.
 
P.S. I'm dying over here, so all opinions are welcomed and appreciated...

<img border="0" alt="[Wowie]" title="" src="graemlins/wowie.gif" />
 
It's tough to say how important the interview is, or how you can tell if it went well or not. This is certain though: don't blow it off or take it too lightly, because if you screw up badly, you probably won't get into that school. A good interview might not help you, but a bad one can kill you.
 
I think that if your intreviewer really likes you, they can really push for you to be accepted.

For example, I have pretty borderline scores and my interviewer at my state school told me that she really liked my motivation. I got a vibe that she liked me in general for some reason. I got in 4 weeks later and when the dean of admissions called me he said that my intreviewer really pushed for me to get the acceptance. So in that case I think my interview definately did something. I honestly don't think I wouldn't have gotten in so quick if it weren't for her.

And also my expereinces with other interviews have kinda gone the same way. When it was good at a school, I got in, when it was so, so I didn't.

So take from that what you want, but I've come away with a strong feeling that interviews do matter.
 
I've always been under the impression that you're invited to an interview because you're acceptable for the incoming class and that this is an opportunity for them to see if you're a capable individual. I believe they want to see if you have the maturity to matriculate, the drive to survive and the wherewithal to take it all. And first impressions are no different in the interview than in real life. The first two minutes are crucial. If you're trembling like a flower, you might find yourself in some trouble. If you come in confident and relaxed, you might be apt to receive less grilling. Your ability to handle this environment should result in an acceptance, or perhaps a waitlist.
 
Here is my humble opinion:
I only had blind interviews, so I can vouch for them. Either:
a) blind interview is total crap, and the interviewer actually reads your file (event hough they might tell you otherwise) beforehand, then tries to see whats inconsistent with what you tell them
b) gobears is right and its all based on appearances--within 2 minutes they decide whether they want you or not. Otherwise--what would explain the fact that I had a blind, totally horrible, boring as hell interview, where the interviewer did not seem interested in me at all, and then got up and announced I was in?
I think--he either read my file beforehand and already knew he wanted to accept me, or he just liked me, simple as that. Sounds superficial, huh?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
so you said some schools, like columbia and stanford dont value interviews too much.

so what do you think about the following schools: Dartmouth, U Vermont, NYU, Boston U, U Rochester, Yale, and Harvard?

specifically, if you're invited to an interview, does it mean you have a good chance to get accepted, if the interviewer likes you, or they do decide beforehand?

thanks
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by pj02007:
•so you said some schools, like columbia and stanford dont value interviews too much.

so what do you think about the following schools: Dartmouth, U Vermont, NYU, Boston U, U Rochester, Yale, and Harvard?

specifically, if you're invited to an interview, does it mean you have a good chance to get accepted, if the interviewer likes you, or they do decide beforehand?

thanks•••••Dartmouth Yes
U Vermont no
NYU yes
Boston U yes
U Rochester no
Yale no
Harvard no
 
thanks but does 'yes' mean they decide before hand or no? sorry i misunderstood.
 
wow this thread is already long and i haven't read through all the posts.

but my thoughts on this is that it's REALLY hard to tell the final decision based on how you felt the interview went.

1. because there is so much variability on the schools' emphasis on the interview
2. even if you have a good interview, it's still REALLY competitive to get in. the numbers just aren't in your favor.
 
Schools have a limited number of interview spots, why would they waste one of those spots on someone they knew they wouldn't admit even before the interview? At my school, its absolutely impossible to get in with a bad or even average interview. They have to love you for you to get ranked highly. The numbers are only considered for interview invites. This is only at my school and obviously things vary. Just go with the old saying, "numbers get you the interview, the interview gets you in."
 
By the way, I just found out that was my 50th post and I am a SENIOR MEMBER. WOW, I never thought this day would come. This process is so long and terrible and agonizing and I never thought I would get through but I did it. For all you guys still out there trying to become Senior Members, I know this process is aweful but stay in there and stick with it and things will work out for the best. Just keep chasing those dreams and things will happen for you. I can't believe it!!! I have to go call my family and friends. My mom is probably going to call the whole neighborhood and tell them I'm a Senior Member. :clap:
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Fah-Q:
• At my school, its absolutely impossible to get in with a bad or even average interview. They have to love you for you to get ranked highly. This is only at my school and obviously things vary. Just go with the old saying, "numbers get you the interview, the interview gets you in."•••••Fah-Q, what school do you attend?
 
I think that if the interviewer has read your file--he/she pretty much has made a decision before the interview.

Now, of course, if there are more than minor inconsistencies between what you say or what is on paper or if you appear presumptious/ pretensious during the interview than any favorable opinions before the interview will dissipate.

About Lady in Red's theory about blind interviews being crap; there might be some validity to that. Though my last interview was open file, the interviewer told me that she had not read any of it. Coincidently, there were questions she asked that I had specifically wrote about on my PS. I think she was trying to see if things matched.
 
no_dignity_left:
middle-of-the-road state school
 
jmeija:
The only school who was truthful about blind interviews was UCSF. I could tell the interviewers had no idea who I was. However, at all others where it was supposedly blind, they were asking me questions straight from my essay! And one guy even ADMITTED (!) to me he read my file--he even remembered my mother's name and what she (my mother!) did for living, even though officialy the interview was blind. I was stunned and pointed it out to the admissions person (i guess it was the dean), and she apologized for the 'inconsistency'. In the end, this made me look like an idiot.
 
I do think interviews are more important than they were 10-15 years ago. Maybe medicine is actually listening to patients who speak up and ask for a physician they can "actually talk to".
I've heard patients say this over and over. (I work as a nurse in an ER). When the patients refer to someone they don't want to see, I can pretty much figure out which docs they mean. There are a few that I work with that I wouldn't want to see!
I know each school has a different format...but here's MY question. How many people are on the committee? Does it have to be a majority vote? Do your interviewers actually go to the meeting, or just submit their report? I had an interview with just one person at one school, and two interviewers at another. Do they have equal weight? Does anyone know how this actually takes place?
 
I'm bumping this up because I was about to start the same thread.

Now that most of my interviews are done, I have to say that all of them were really good. I felt really good vibes from all of my interviewers, and some have given me postive feedback as well.

The problem is that on most of these interviews, the interviewer just hands in their evaluation form and doesn't sit on the board at the meeting. That kind of sucks, don't you think? Because I'm sure most applicants have good interviews and get good evaluations. I don't see how one could have a bad one (as long as it's not a stress interview or an evil interviewer). Of course there are exceptions, but if everyone has a good interview, it probably doesn't count that much at the end.

So do I have a better chance of getting in since my interviews have gone really well? Will they overlook my stupid mcat score?
 
Though my interview experience is not very vast, I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. My interviewer really seemed like she had a strong initial impression of me before the interview. Before the interview "really got started" she mentioned how impressed she was with my grades while holding a job and being involved in a few EC's at the same time, with my grad grades, and she loved my essays. This impression seemed to last throughout the rest of the interview and she really seemed impressed by my responses (though all I told her was what first came to my head). At the end she told me that she was able to "verify" all the stuff in my folder and that she hopes to see me in August. So in my case, I think this good interview was important and can really help me out, but all I can do now is wait and see. But in general, interviews are what set you apart from the other applicants and if you are able to really sell yourself, you have a good chance at an acceptance.
 
I was waitlisted at my state school (same as my undergrad school) because my interview was "average to above average." Essentially, the interviewers weren't satisfied with my response to one of the questions, and one person on the committee put more weight on that than the other committee members. Personally, I left the interview feeling confident that it had gone well. I was told that everything else in my app was good enough to get me in.
On the other hand, my interviews at MCW went pretty well and I was accepted.
Oh, and Northwestern--weird interview experience followed by a rejection a few months later. Talk about having absolutely no vibe/rapport with interviewers. I suppose the interview was when I realized that I didn't belong there and I pretty much rejected them. Great school, but I just didn't like it.
So, back on point--in my admittedly limited experience, interviews do matter, and at some schools they matter a lot. And, your perception of the interview doesn't necessarily mirror that of the interviewer's. Just my thoughts based on my experiences--hope it helps.
 
Doctora Foxy or anyone else who happens to know, how much does the interview matter at Chicago Med? I really liked the school.
 
I used to think interviews are extremely important, but the two interviews where I thaught I did the best, I got rejected from MCW 2 weeks later and Northwestern. My other best interview got me into USC, so I donno. It varies from school to school how important the interview is.
 
I'm a bit baffled as well. My worst interview day, by far, was at UF. It was also my first one, and I was considerably nervous. I stuttered and stammered my way through my first interview. She was so nice and I just kept whiffing as she pitched her questions slow and right over the center of the plate. I developed a lovely headache before my second interview. As he grilled me with tough ethical questions, all I could do was keep from throwing up on his desk. I thought that I had blown it, but I was wrong--I was accepted!
My best interview day was at UAB. I had three interviewers, and I was on top of my game with all three. One of my interviewers even said that there was no question that my application was stellar. He even told me that he had a feeling that I would be one of their "star" students next year. I have to admit that I was expecting good things, but I was wrong again--rejected soon after (not even waitlisted). So, who the hell knows what really goes on behind closed doors. Obviously each school does things differently, but I'm beginning to think that a great interview is not a golden ticket after all. Most of my interviews went well, in my opinion, so I'm interested to see if I get some positive results. If so, then maybe these two examples are just aberrations. :confused:
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by NUgirl:
•Doctora Foxy or anyone else who happens to know, how much does the interview matter at Chicago Med? I really liked the school.•••••I think if the interviewer checks off "star applicant" then it matters a lot and will get you in fast. Otherwise, I have no idea, but I'm sure it helps if it went well. They might even categorize everyone after by the interview score, but they probably look at the whole package.
 
Dr. Foxy,
I pretty much aggree with what you said. I think a really good interview experience when they *really* like you can get you in, no doubt.

I think that you are in a good position becuase espeically interviewing at this point in the process your interpersonal skills and interview impression will carry a lot of weight. just IMO :)
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by megkudos:
•Dr. Foxy,
I pretty much aggree with what you said. I think a really good interview experience when they *really* like you can get you in, no doubt.

I think that you are in a good position becuase espeically interviewing at this point in the process your interpersonal skills and interview impression will carry a lot of weight. just IMO :) •••••ooh, thank you! I hope you're right!
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Doctora Foxy:
• •••quote:•••Originally posted by NUgirl:
•Doctora Foxy or anyone else who happens to know, how much does the interview matter at Chicago Med? I really liked the school.•••••I think if the interviewer checks off "star applicant" then it matters a lot and will get you in fast. Otherwise, I have no idea, but I'm sure it helps if it went well. They might even categorize everyone after by the interview score, but they probably look at the whole package.•••••Regarding Finch, I interviewed late in Feb, and was accepted about a month later. Obviously, I don't know if I was considered a "star applicant," although I really think I should've. It was, by far, the funnest, yet potentially most disastrous, interview I've had. It was intense, but I thought I handled it well.
 
so the results show us that you never know..when it's bad it can be an acceptance, when it's good it can be an acceptance, when it's good it can be a rejection even.

BUT we haven't heard much about people who had stress interviews (not BAD only--but bad because they were STRESS interviews--or post even if they were good interviews that started out as STRESS interviews).

What i want to know is: of the people who had STRESS interviews (good or bad in your opinion is a bit inconsequential, since i buy into Choker's post about the person having made up their mind and if you handle yourself ok enough during the STRESS then you're in), how many were rejected or accepted. BECAUSE i'm willing to bet that MORE people were accepted than rejected!!!

What do you say?? speak to us people. what were your experiences?
I had STRESS interviews at MCPH (haven't heard yet, but will soon supposedly), and UMiami (will hear soon also). i think i'll get into MCP--although i handled it well in both interviews--but not UM because i just have a feeling.

What have your experiences been???
 
My experiences that matter:

MCW: High stress interview from one interviewer. Started going into all this ethical stuff. 2 weeks after - accepted.

Columbia: EXTREMELY laid back with a cool ass dude! Told me that I had a wonderful application and basically told me I was a great applicant in the first minute. I was very surprised to get into this school.

UPitt: I thought I was in HELL! One question after another grilling me and making me feel like an idiot! Trying to disprove everything I said and making me extremely uncomfortable. HIGH STRESS?? No..this was let him run his fingers along the chalkboard while giving me a brazilian wax and force me to watch The Golden Girls. End result = ACCEPTED! I was extremely surprised.

I think choker is right on about the stress interviews.
 
I found that my two worst interviews both landed in acceptances. The stress interviews give you a better chance of showing off your personality, assuming you can handle it, but overall they are definitely a terrible experience. I was wondering if you guys think that there is a correlation between when you interview and the outcome, especially at schools that send all decisions at once. I interviewed on the very first day at Yale and got rejected, and on the very last day at Penn and am on the first tier of their waitlist. I think it helped me to interview late there because they remembered who I am. Well, I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for Penn to come through (its always been my first choice!)
 
Finally I can add to this thread! My interviews at Finch went really well and I was accepted.

My interviews went really well at GW and UVM as well. At BU and Temple they were so-so, and at UF one was great and one was just ok (waitlisted). Usually, these are based on the interviewers' personalities---some are easygoing and some are cold, which resulted in my above impressions of how the interviews went. Interviewing this late in the season is not an accurate way to view these correlations, b/c there weren't many seats left when I was interviewing.
 
As far as stress versus non-stress interviews I can throw in my two cents.
Emory: Really laid back even during the pointless group interview. My one on one guy spent a bunch of the time talking about his research and asking me about mine. Very low-key and he told me that he would love to have me come and work for him in his lab. --Waitlisted

UPitt: I am going echo Scooby here. My student interview was rough going. The guy question after question at me about ethical stuff from embryiotic cells to abortion and managed care. You name it. Totally felt like I was drowning. the faculty guy was a little better, but asked all these funny personality probing questions like "What animal do you relate to?" and "How do you deal with difficult patients?" I was caught a bit off-guard by some and gave really dumb answers. --ACCEPTED ?!?

Maybe there is something to the high stress theory.
 
In my opinion, you can't judge whether you will be accepted from your interview unless you really do something bad during the interview. I had interviews at schools where I was told things like "You would make a wonderful addition to our school (blah,blah) I hope you choose us." They commented on how much they liked my essay. In the end these schools waitlisted me.

On the other hand, I had two interviews where I was sure that I was going to get rejected. They seemed unimpressed, pointed out every flaw they could find, and were generally tough interviewers. Then much to my suprise I got in. So you never can tell until you get a response from the school.
 
I think interviews have a LOT of weight. Just think: schools get thousands of applicants, many that look almost the same on paper. They weed through those, managing to trim the pack to a couple hundred or a thousand, but then they have to further weed those out to find the right people to fill the hundred or so places in their class! When you are invited for an interview, they are telling you that you have passed the screening and are academically capable of attending the school. Now they want to meet you, to get to know you as well as they can in the 30 minute interview to see what kind of person you are. Interviews can definitely make you or break you.
On the other hand, I think it does seem that interviews don't make a difference because it is hard sometimes for a applicant to accurately judge whether or not they "did well" in an interview. In the one interview that I thought I bombed, I was accepted immediately, and another that I thought I kicked butt in I ended up waitlisted to the school. With hindsight, I can probably accept that I was so nervous that it was hard for me to really tell if the interviewer thought I did well or not, and really, that was all that mattered . . .
 
You want a correlation?

3.80 GPA
26 MCAT

Four waitlists at schools where my interview was so-so.

One acceptance at a school where I interviewed with the dean and sat and talked about mutual interests in art and music for an hour an a half.

I'd say that if you rock the interview, there is a big correlation.
 
A good interview may not get you in, but a bad interview (not stress interview) can definitely keep you out.
 
I think the interview is very important, although you must also have a strong application. I was accepted to every school I interviewed at, (still waiting on BU), and I think the interview played a major part in that. I also had a strong application, so that helped. But I certainly believe that the interview is important, as I know applicants who had stronger MCATs but who did not interview as well and who didn't get in. BAsically, they want to see that you're someone who they would want to go to school with or who they would want to be their doctor, assuming you know your stuff.
 
choker said:
-a friend of mine was told by an admissions director "no school is gonna have the balls to invite you across the country to bust your balls. so you have two basic types of interviews. in the first, the "sacoya" interview, the guy reads your app and knows you're not qualified so he looks at it and is like "oh so you went to camp sacoya, my son went to camp sacoya," and you shoot the **** for 30 minutes in a pleasant conversation, leave, and he proceeds to reject you based on his thinking you underqualified. in the second interview or stress interview, the guy knows you are qualified, so he tries to bust your chops and see if he can find a weak spot."
Click to expand...


woah .. so then Drexel was a stress interview, they thought I was qualified, and Penn State was definitely NOT a stressful interview .. one interviewer even complimented me .. crap .. well Drexel did make me look stupid.
 
There's a lot of old threads being resurrected lately... Is this... AN EPIDEMIC OF ZOMBIE THREADS???
 
First Interview: Was a bit nervous, thought I answered all the questions relatively well...waitlist

Second Interview: Went very well, they asked standard questions, one of the interviewers did her residency where I did my volunteering/worked for the past 3 years. Don't know if that helped but I got accepted

Third Interview: This one was 3 - one hour interviews. 1st one went well, talked about random stuff a little about my experiences. 2nd interview was with an advisor. Updated them with my current master's and performace, thought it went great. Final interview, the doctor was running late so they gave me another advisor. She was really nice, talked about football, school and lots of random stuff. Thought overall it was my best interview out of the 3, all the interviews seemed to like me. Ended up getting rejected. I called to find out why, said I would not be able to speak with the director of admissions until after the interview cycle, which I thought was pretty stupid.
 
first interview-I thought it went really badly. I later described it as not being a stress interview but rather feeling like the guy generally didn't like me...I got into this school within the month

second interview-i thought it went SO well. We spoke for a while. I answered every question really well. She told me that I would make a great doctor...flat out rejection from this school

third and fourth interviews-I thought I did really really well but i havn't heard yet. I hope it doesn't follow the same pattern
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

P
How do adcoms make the difference between good, bad, and excellent clinical experience
Replies
2
Views
676
LizzyM
LizzyM
schrodingers_box
How important is submitting on the first day?
Replies
7
Views
1K
Goro
Goro
M
Are my ECs good?
Replies
17
Views
637
cj_cregg
cj_cregg
I
  • Question
How important is a deployment?
Replies
10
Views
573
Ion56
I
D
  • Locked
Why are some schools "stat-******"? Is there really any difference between the academic ability of a 518 vs. 525, etc?
Replies
39
Views
3K
chilly_md
chilly_md
Top