How many interviews before one can feel somewhat comfortable about eventually getting an acceptance

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
B

Birdness

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
31
Reaction score
10
Members don't see this ad.
Assuming average interview skills how many interviews does one need to have a good possibility of eventual acceptance. I know here are no guarantees but at some point statistical probabilities come into play. Opinions welcome
 
I agree. Although I have heard that three is a good number. Don't know of any data or statistic but like Mad Jack said it only takes one acceptance, regardless of number of interviews.
 
One acceptance. You never know what your interviewer is writing about you or how they're misconstruing what you say. Don't stop
Interviewing till you get an acceptance.
 
None of them and all of them.

I had one SDNer tell me that he went on > 15 interviews before landing an accept.

You're not in until you're in. Don't get complacent.



Birdness said:
Assuming average interview skills how many interviews does one need to have a good possibility of eventual acceptance. I know here are no guarantees but at some point statistical probabilities come into play. Opinions welcome
Click to expand...
 
Goro said:
None of them and all of them.

I had one SDNer tell me that he went on > 15 interviews before landing an accept.

You're not in until you're in. Don't get complacent.
Click to expand...
Not a question of complacency. I was just wondering how many one needs so that I can worry a little less. There is no question I will go to all of my interviews till I land an acceptance.
 
Last edited:
Birdness said:
Not a question of complacency. I was just wondering how many one needs so that I can worry a little less. There is no question I will go to all of my interviews till I land an acceptance.
Click to expand...
Goro said:
None of them and all of them.

I had one SDNer tell me that he went on > 15 interviews before landing an accept.

You're not in until you're in. Don't get complacent.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with looking at the probability of acceptance by looking at the usnews stats that give you accepted vs interviewed as a rough guide to the probability of acceptance.
For example if 40% are eventually accepted per school and you have 3 interviews you would have a 78.4% chance of acceptance. I understand this is a simplification in that interview skills are a variable not entered here. However, assuming average interview skills does that 78% give some idea of where you stand in terms of acceptance possibility?
Opinions welcome
 
piii said:
Hey there's this awesome cool thing that no one ever uses called a search function.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...out-eventually-getting-an-acceptance.1176563/

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/how-many-interviews-until-youre-safe.1115012/

This thread gets brought up all the time. The answers it NO ONE KNOWS. Some people get in with one. Some people never get in with 10. Statistics dont come in to play when each applicant has like 1500 different variables in their cycle.
Click to expand...

Perks of the instant gratification generation. "Why research when you can get answers right away?'
 
Birdness said:
What's wrong with looking at the probability of acceptance by looking at the usnews stats that give you accepted vs interviewed as a rough guide to the probability of acceptance.
For example if 40% are eventually accepted per school and you have 3 interviews you would have a 78.4% chance of acceptance. I understand this is a simplification in that interview skills are a variable not entered here. However, assuming average interview skills does that 78% give some idea of where you stand in terms of acceptance possibility?
Opinions welcome
Click to expand...
If all variables were consistent then sure you could use that method. The fact of the matter though, is that your chances have nothing to do with that number. You could be a ****ty interviewer. You might not jive with your interviewers (@Monster_Cat). So go ahead, have fun thinking about the chances. But that's not going to accomplish anything, it's not going to ease your mind or make you less anxious about chances, until you get an acceptance.
 
piii said:
If al variables were consistent then sure you could use that method. The fact of the matter though, is that your chances has nothing to do with that number. You could be a ****ty interviewer. You might not jive with your interviewers (@Monster_Cat). So go ahead, have fun thinking of the chances. But that's not going to accomplish anything, it's not going to ease your mind or make you less anxious about chances, until you get an acceptance.
Click to expand...

This. All the odds in the world don't mean much when you're an individual.
 
Not sure why even these pretty simple, direct questions have to be turned into an ordeal. Yes, don't relax until to get an acceptance and someone with 10+ interviews can get shut out.

That said, what is a decent number of interviews for a cycle, and what amount suggests that you are a decent to strong applicant with a good opportunity if you don't blow all the interviews?
 
Isnt the old saying "interview 3, a doctor you will be"?

If a large number of schools accept somewhere between 40-60% yes you can do the rough math to see how many interviews it will take to really feel like you have a good chance at getting one acceptance. We all there are many variables, many people get 7+ II's and no acceptances etc, but historical precedent would suggest 3+ IIs and there is a fair chance an acceptance will result from them.
 
An awful lot of people get one interview and they get a seat. Other folks may have a dozen and not be able to quite close the deal with any of them.

It isn't a numbers game. You are asking for an answer that no one can give you because it isn't a thing.

I interviewed once, because I only finished one app, because I wanted to go where I wanted to go, and they wanted me... for better or worse. I have a dear friend who is on her third cycle of several interviews, but no acceptances. If you ask me, her application looks a lot stronger than mine. I don't know what goes on in those interviews, or why no one has snapped her up yet, but that is the way it worked out.
 
Nietzschelover said:
Not sure why even these pretty simple, direct questions have to be turned into an ordeal. Yes, don't relax until to get an acceptance and someone with 10+ interviews can get shut out.

That said, what is a decent number of interviews for a cycle, and what amount suggests that you are a decent to strong applicant with a good opportunity if you don't blow all the interviews?
Click to expand...

If you have 5 or more interviews and don't get in, then ask come June "What went wrong?" -- Odds are good that most SDNers will agree that your interviewing skills were probably sub-par. If you had 3 or more interviewers, the question of your interview skills would probably be raised, but not presumed.

Does that help?
 
DokterMom said:
If you have 5 or more interviews and don't get in, then ask come June "What went wrong?" -- Odds are good that most SDNers will agree that your interviewing skills were probably sub-par. If you had 3 or more interviewers, the question of your interview skills would probably be raised, but not presumed.

Does that help?
Click to expand...

Absolutely that helps, although it's not for me personally. I assume that's what the OP was looking for

Another way of putting it is what number of interviews gives you a good idea that you are a competitive applicant pre-interview and did a good job putting your application together.
 
Nietzschelover said:
Absolutely that helps, although it's not for me personally. I assume that's what the OP was looking for

Another way of putting it is what number of interviews gives you a good idea that you are a competitive applicant pre-interview and did a good job putting your application together.
Click to expand...

I know it wasn't you that asked -- Just quoting for agreement. And again now because I agree with this also. The number of II's you receive speak to your pre-interview application: Numbers, PS, ECs, LORs. The proportion of Acceptances / Waitlists / Rejections to Interviews speaks more to interview performance.
 
I'm not the @Monster_Cat you are looking for
piii said:
If all variables were consistent then sure you could use that method. The fact of the matter though, is that your chances have nothing to do with that number. You could be a ****ty interviewer. You might not jive with your interviewers (@Monster_Cat). So go ahead, have fun thinking about the chances. But that's not going to accomplish anything, it's not going to ease your mind or make you less anxious about chances, until you get an acceptance.
Click to expand...
 
It's case by case. In my opinion it's probably easier to get in with 1 interview at your state school with a high post acceptance rate than 3 interviews at OOS schools with low post acceptance rates. That's obviously not taking into account personal performance and other factors.
 
After having 5 II and 3 post-interview rejections...i honestly thought i was done for. There are no guarantees either way!
 
I thought it was 3...until I went on 3 interviews and ended up on 3 WL.

Only now do I understand what people mean by "it doesn't matter" because it's totally up to you. I think I'd say if you end up going to 4 II and inexplicably end up with no acceptances out of those, your interviewing might be a problem. But a lot of other things go into decision post-interview as well, so you could have an ok interview, but your overall package just wasn't as good as other interviewees.
 
Birdness said:
What's wrong with looking at the probability of acceptance by looking at the usnews stats that give you accepted vs interviewed as a rough guide to the probability of acceptance.
For example if 40% are eventually accepted per school and you have 3 interviews you would have a 78.4% chance of acceptance. I understand this is a simplification in that interview skills are a variable not entered here. However, assuming average interview skills does that 78% give some idea of where you stand in terms of acceptance possibility?
Opinions welcome
Click to expand...
Because interviews don't work on a simple statistical model. Many of the 60% that aren't accepted are not accepted at multiple other places due to poor interviewing, while many of the 40% are accepted nearly across the board due to strong interviewing. It isn't a random chance of rolling the dice once a person walks into the door. Some people are good at interviews, others are terrible, and truthfully most people aren't self aware enough to know the difference so it's best to just not count your chickens before they hatch.
 
GrapesofRath said:
Isnt the old saying "interview 3, a doctor you will be"?

If a large number of schools accept somewhere between 40-60% yes you can do the rough math to see how many interviews it will take to really feel like you have a good chance at getting one acceptance. We all there are many variables, many people get 7+ II's and no acceptances etc, but historical precedent would suggest 3+ IIs and there is a fair chance an acceptance will result from them.
Click to expand...
I'd bet there's a lot of redundancy in the waitlisted/rejected group, as there's a reason that they weren't accepted post-interview that has something to do with their interview performance. It's probably more of a dichotomy- your people that need 8 interviews to nail one, and your people that nail 7 out of the 8. So on the surface, it looks like 40%, when in fact you've got a bimodal distribution of people that have strong interviewing skills and have a high interview:acceptance ratio, versus people that have poor interviewing skills and have a very low interview:acceptance ratio.
 
Mad Jack said:
I'd bet there's a lot of redundancy in the waitlisted/rejected group, as there's a reason that they weren't accepted post-interview that has something to do with their interview performance. It's probably more of a dichotomy- your people that need 8 interviews to nail one, and your people that nail 7 out of the 8. So on the surface, it looks like 40%, when in fact you've got a bimodal distribution of people that have strong interviewing skills and have a high interview:acceptance ratio, versus people that have poor interviewing skills and have a very low interview:acceptance ratio.
Click to expand...
And then you add the weirdos that are amazing at interviews but have ECs or a PS that aren't the "flavor" of a particular school so they end up with 1-2 II's and 100% acceptance rate from that.
 
darknecrosforte said:
And then you add the weirdos that are amazing at interviews but have ECs or a PS that aren't the "flavor" of a particular school so they end up with 1-2 II's and 100% acceptance rate from that.
Click to expand...
Lol that's me. 2 MD and 2 DO IIs and I've gone 4/4.
 
Mad Jack said:
I'd bet there's a lot of redundancy in the waitlisted/rejected group, as there's a reason that they weren't accepted post-interview that has something to do with their interview performance. It's probably more of a dichotomy- your people that need 8 interviews to nail one, and your people that nail 7 out of the 8. So on the surface, it looks like 40%, when in fact you've got a bimodal distribution of people that have strong interviewing skills and have a high interview:acceptance ratio, versus people that have poor interviewing skills and have a very low interview:acceptance ratio.
Click to expand...

This is true but past a point its really hard to say and really alot of it will vary from individual school to school.

I do buy that if you give a 3.8/33 vs a 3.4/31 6 IIs, the 3.8 student has a much better chance of nabbing more acceptances, even if they interviewed at the same schools. But there is also tremendous variation in how schools interpret applicants. There is also probably a fair amount of variation in how much weight schools give to an interview. You hear stories all the time about people calling schools that gave them a II and then rejected them and then those schools telling them "Oh well your MCAT score was a concern for how low it was" or something along those lines. So I'm not necessairly sure the interview is always that huge of a variable to the point you would get a strong bimodal distribution like you were talking about.
 
GrapesofRath said:
This is true but past a point its really hard to say and really alot of it will vary from individual school to school.

I do buy that if you give a 3.8/33 vs a 3.4/31 6 IIs, the 3.8 student has a much better chance of nabbing more acceptances, even if they interviewed at the same schools. But there is also tremendous variation in how schools interpret applicants. There is also probably a fair amount of variation in how much weight schools give to an interview. You hear stories all the time about people calling schools that gave them a II and then rejected them and then those schools telling them "Oh well your MCAT score was a concern for how low it was" or something along those lines. So I'm not necessairly sure the interview is always that huge of a variable to the point you would get a strong bimodal distribution like you were talking about.
Click to expand...
Most schools outside of the top 20 aren't interviewing you unless they want you. Some of the top 20 schools have an absurdly low interview:acceptance ratio. But at most schools once you reach the interview, the seat is, as they say, your spot to lose. They're not going to waste their time on some guy that doesn't have the stats for the seat to begin with, generally. Many of the people I know fell into that distribution, for the record- either they had a very high ratio or a very low one (either a 4/4 or 1/8 kind of thing). I was in the 3/3 with 8 interviews I just cancelled afterward. I'll do some talking with my classmates, see how their interview seasons went and if it fits with my theory. Sure, it would just be a plurality of anecdotes, but hey, that's all I've got.
 
musicalfeet said:
I thought it was 3...until I went on 3 interviews and ended up on 3 WL.

Only now do I understand what people mean by "it doesn't matter" because it's totally up to you. I think I'd say if you end up going to 4 II and inexplicably end up with no acceptances out of those, your interviewing might be a problem. But a lot of other things go into decision post-interview as well, so you could have an ok interview, but your overall package just wasn't as good as other interviewees.
Click to expand...

I was told post-interviews at one of the schools I got rejected at that my interview was my nail in the coffin.

GrapesofRath said:
This is true but past a point its really hard to say and really alot of it will vary from individual school to school.

I do buy that if you give a 3.8/33 vs a 3.4/31 6 IIs, the 3.8 student has a much better chance of nabbing more acceptances, even if they interviewed at the same schools. But there is also tremendous variation in how schools interpret applicants. There is also probably a fair amount of variation in how much weight schools give to an interview. You hear stories all the time about people calling schools that gave them a II and then rejected them and then those schools telling them "Oh well your MCAT score was a concern for how low it was" or something along those lines. So I'm not necessairly sure the interview is always that huge of a variable to the point you would get a strong bimodal distribution like you were talking about.
Click to expand...

This is also true. I was told by one dean that my 8 in verbal on the MCAT was "worrisome" to the committee when deciding on my candidacy.
 
Mad Jack said:
Most schools outside of the top 20 aren't interviewing you unless they want you. Some of the top 20 schools have an absurdly low interview:acceptance ratio. But at most schools once you reach the interview, the seat is, as they say, your spot to lose. They're not going to waste their time on some guy that doesn't have the stats for the seat to begin with, generally.
Click to expand...

Meh not sure I would really agree with that. At many DO schools where the acceptance rate is over 50% yes "the spot is yours to lose" in those cases. There are many MD schools, including outside the top 20 where the acceptance rate is closer to 30-40% of people interviewed. I dont buy that the interview is the major driving force behind what separates the accepted from the waitlisted in many cases. Schools interview a large range of applicants of various statistical profiles. We can't just assume a 3.5/31 and 3.9/34 are on an even playing field because they both got the II.

It's not an issue of not wanting to waste their time, its simply that some people have flaws but they still want to take a look and meet them in an interview. Those flaws can still come back to bite them.
 
Last edited:
GrapesofRath said:
Meh not sure I would really agree with that. At many DO schools where the acceptance rate is over 50% yes "the spot is yours to lose" in those cases. There are many MD schools, including outside the top 20 where the acceptance rate is closer to 30-40% of people interviewed. I dont buy that the interview is the major driving force behind what separates the accepted from the waitlisted in many cases. Schools interview a large range of applicants of various statistical profiles. We can't just assume a 3.5/31 and 3.9/34 are on an even playing field because they both got the II.

It's not an issue of not wanting to waste their time, its simply that some people have flaws but they still want to take a look and meet them in an interview. Those flaws can still come back to bite them.
Click to expand...
Meh, I'm just going by what I've heard from adcoms over the years. They won't interview you if there's no chance they'll take you- it's a waste of their time and yours. If you're a great interviewee and there was a chance of them taking you, why wouldn't you get in? And that's my point- good interviewees were already under consideration for acceptance, so they're going to get grabbed by multiple places. I mean, I'm sure many people here would like to believe that their not getting accepted was somehow out of their hands post-interview, but the simple fact is, if you nail the interview, you're in, unless it's so late that they're only interviewing to fill their waitlist.
 
Mad Jack said:
Most schools outside of the top 20 aren't interviewing you unless they want you. Some of the top 20 schools have an absurdly low interview:acceptance ratio. But at most schools once you reach the interview, the seat is, as they say, your spot to lose. They're not going to waste their time on some guy that doesn't have the stats for the seat to begin with, generally. Many of the people I know fell into that distribution, for the record- either they had a very high ratio or a very low one (either a 4/4 or 1/8 kind of thing). I was in the 3/3 with 8 interviews I just cancelled afterward. I'll do some talking with my classmates, see how their interview seasons went and if it fits with my theory. Sure, it would just be a plurality of anecdotes, but hey, that's all I've got.
Click to expand...

Do you mind clarifying what you mean by this? Do you mean that top 20 schools accept very few of who they interview? If so, why is that the case? (or conversely, if not, then why?)

For what reasons are there such distinctions in interviews/acceptances between top schools and other schools?
 
Pantaloooons said:
Do you mind clarifying what you mean by this? Do you mean that top 20 schools accept very few of who they interview? If so, why is that the case? (or conversely, if not, then why?)

For what reasons are there such distinctions in interviews/acceptances between top schools and other schools?
Click to expand...


Top schools have a lot of applicants with impressive everythings, so the nebulous aspects of "personality" and "fit" make a bigger difference. There is also a range of acceptances/interviews for top schools, from stanford's low interview rate but relatively high 40% acceptance rate to yale and duke's rate of about 30-35% to columbia's quite low 20-25% acceptance rate. However, comparing these to your average state school, the post interview acceptance rates will be lower overall because the interview generally will play a bigger role (everyone has the stats and the ECs - you need another way to differentiate applicants). For comparison, UVA, a solid state school with numbers similar to top 20s (3.8/36), has a post interview acceptance rate of ~80% for Virginians and ~60% acceptance rate for OOS applicants.
 
Mad Jack said:
Meh, I'm just going by what I've heard from adcoms over the years. They won't interview you if there's no chance they'll take you- it's a waste of their time and yours. If you're a great interviewee and there was a chance of them taking you, why wouldn't you get in? And that's my point- good interviewees were already under consideration for acceptance, so they're going to get grabbed by multiple places. I mean, I'm sure many people here would like to believe that their not getting accepted was somehow out of their hands post-interview, but the simple fact is, if you nail the interview, you're in, unless it's so late that they're only interviewing to fill their waitlist.
Click to expand...

I am going by the same what ADCOMs have said as well. The bold in particular I think we are oversimplifying things, unless you want to say that maybe less than 5% of people really nail the interview.

I think LizzyM's steps analogy works well here; everybody who is offered a II starts out on a certain step(either high or low----high step meaning they are closest to getting an acceptance or rated the highest). The interview can move you up or down but at the end of the day it's one factor. Those at the higher steps are still at an advantage and where you are in the hiearchy matters. Many other ADCOMs have echoed similar sentiments from mimelim to MedEd that all applicants offered a II certainly arent all on the same level/playing field coming into the II. Stats still matter post-II.

It's not that you have no chance of getting accepted if you get a II, but the factors that could have caused concern pre-II still can cause concern post-II. We have a poster above who said when s/he called the school that rejected them post-II, they told them the 8 in verbal was a concern. These types of stories are things you hear of all the time; I know many many people with similar stories.
 
GrapesofRath said:
I am going by the same what ADCOMs have said as well. The bold in particular I think we are oversimplifying things, unless you want to say that maybe less than 5% of people really nail the interview.

I think LizzyM's steps analogy works well here; everybody who is offered a II starts out on a certain step(either high or low----high step meaning they are closest to getting an acceptance or rated the highest). The interview can move you up or down but at the end of the day it's one factor. Those at the higher steps are still at an advantage and where you are in the hiearchy matters. Many other ADCOMs have echoed similar sentiments from mimelim to MedEd that all applicants offered a II certainly arent all on the same level/playing field coming into the II. Stats still matter post-II.

It's not that you have no chance of getting accepted if you get a II, but the factors that could have caused concern pre-II still can cause concern post-II. We have a poster above who said when s/he called the school that rejected them post-II, they told them the 8 in verbal was a concern. These types of stories are things you hear of all the time; I know many many people with similar stories.
Click to expand...
While the excellent interviewers are probably a smallish fraction, I'd venture that the terrible interviewees are a fairly common thing to come across, if my time of dealing with interviewees at various jobs throughout the years was any indication. A good third of people are genuinely terrible at interviews, and I mean "I can't believe the words that are coming out of your mouth" levels of painful. Stats certainly matter after the interview, but the interview is extremely important and can get you the seat, or far more likely, lose it for you.
 
Pantaloooons said:
Do you mind clarifying what you mean by this? Do you mean that top 20 schools accept very few of who they interview? If so, why is that the case? (or conversely, if not, then why?)

For what reasons are there such distinctions in interviews/acceptances between top schools and other schools?
Click to expand...
There's a few schools that are known to interview 4 to 5 students for every acceptance. It's probably just because they can afford to be picky, because seriously, why not at that point. It's a buyer's market, after all.
 
WedgeDawg said:
Top schools have a lot of applicants with impressive everythings, so the nebulous aspects of "personality" and "fit" make a bigger difference. There is also a range of acceptances/interviews for top schools, from stanford's low interview rate but relatively high 40% acceptance rate to yale and duke's rate of about 30-35% to columbia's quite low 20-25% acceptance rate. However, comparing these to your average state school, the post interview acceptance rates will be lower overall because the interview generally will play a bigger role (everyone has the stats and the ECs - you need another way to differentiate applicants). For comparison, UVA, a solid state school with numbers similar to top 20s (3.8/36), has a post interview acceptance rate of ~80% for Virginians and ~60% acceptance rate for OOS applicants.
Click to expand...

For some reason I thought it had to do with the idea that many interviewees at top institutions are interviewing at other top institutions and therefore these med schools are all generally more conservative about outright accepting many applicants, especially those that may not end up matriculating.
 
Mad Jack said:
While the excellent interviewers are probably a smallish fraction, I'd venture that the terrible interviewees are a fairly common thing to come across, if my time of dealing with interviewees at various jobs throughout the years was any indication. A good third of people are genuinely terrible at interviews, and I mean "I can't believe the words that are coming out of your mouth" levels of painful. Stats certainly matter after the interview, but the interview is extremely important and can get you the seat, or far more likely, lose it for you.
Click to expand...

I think LizzyM has said in the past for her school she would say only 10% of interviewers are truly bad and where that is really the main thing that sends them to the rejection pile. Obviously your mileage will vary by school and individual interviewer. I agree from my own personal experience whenever I've done interviews(ie for ex when I was on my schools Student Gov and we had to find people to fill our spots for next year) there were hoards and hoards of just flat out poor interviewers who didnt know what they were doing. But that's just our personal experience.

I do agree that people are far more likely to lose a spot in the interview than truly win it from just that.
 
Pantaloooons said:
For some reason I thought it had to do with the idea that many interviewees at top institutions are interviewing at other top institutions and therefore these med schools are all generally more conservative about outright accepting many applicants, especially those that may not end up matriculating.
Click to expand...

Could also be a contributing factor
 
Pantaloooons said:
For some reason I thought it had to do with the idea that many interviewees at top institutions are interviewing at other top institutions and therefore these med schools are all generally more conservative about outright accepting many applicants, especially those that may not end up matriculating.
Click to expand...
That would be all the more reason to accept more people, not less, as the ones that you accepted would be just as likely to take a seat somewhere else (regardless of how much they're swearing up and down they want to attend your school).
 
Mad Jack said:
That would be all the more reason to accept more people, not less, as the ones that you accepted would be just as likely to take a seat somewhere else (regardless of how much they're swearing up and down they want to attend your school).
Click to expand...

A lot of these schools have large waitlists though. They tend to underaccept because overaccepting is far worse - they can strategically pull from the waitlist to fill a class because there will always be people willing to come to one of these schools, but it's a much bigger headache to fix an over-enrollment.
 
Yeah I agree with MadJack I know LizzyM has said at her top school they need 3 offers to fill every spot(hence they accept alot of people). I dont think top schools yield rates are necessairly higher than others; in fact many are competing over the same top applicants who can only go one place.

There is actually a med school by where I live that over-enrolled a couple years ago, it was a nightmare all around. For lower tier schools that over-enroll, it often means they can simply take fewer people from their SMP or post-bacc program or BS/MD program etc that many lower tier programs tend to have. For top schools that dont have those things, its a much bigger mess.
 
WedgeDawg said:
A lot of these schools have large waitlists though. They tend to underaccept because overaccepting is far worse - they can strategically pull from the waitlist to fill a class because there will always be people willing to come to one of these schools, but it's a much bigger headache to fix an over-enrollment.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine they have both a deep acceptance list and a deep waitlist, because the guy that gets accepted to Harvard is probably getting accepted to at least three or four other places. There's probably a lot of redundancy in those top lists, and adcoms can no doubt account for it after years of experience.
 
Mad Jack said:
I'd imagine they have both a deep acceptance list and a deep waitlist, because the guy that gets accepted to Harvard is probably getting accepted to at least three or four other places. There's probably a lot of redundancy in those top lists, and adcoms can no doubt account for it after years of experience.
Click to expand...

I don't think the level of redundancy that comes with both a large acceptance list and a large waitlist is necessary, though. If you have a small initial acceptance list and a large waitlist, you can wait for the dust to settle and have all other top school acceptances and scholarship money go out and see what happens. Likely, you'll need to pull from your waitlist. Since your waitlist has 100+ people on it, you can easily fill your class.

If you have a large acceptance list and a large waitlist, and people decide for whatever reason to matriculate disproportionately in favor of your school, you run into to possibility of over-enrolling. The only real downside to a smaller admit list and a larger waitlist is that some of the superstar students might be missed out on if you choose to accept people that are more likely to attend your school but might not be quite as superstar, but that's probably, in admissions deans' minds, worth forgoing the risk of over-enrolling.

However, the main exception to this is Harvard, who has a normal acceptance profile for a top school, a low post-interview acceptance rate with a fairly high number of interviews, but an incredibly small (like 30 people) waitlist. There are also quite a few people (like myself) who are only accepted to a single top school and thus don't really factor into this equation in terms of choosing between schools.
 
WedgeDawg said:
I don't think the level of redundancy that comes with both a large acceptance list and a large waitlist is necessary, though. If you have a small initial acceptance list and a large waitlist, you can wait for the dust to settle and have all other top school acceptances and scholarship money go out and see what happens. Likely, you'll need to pull from your waitlist. Since your waitlist has 100+ people on it, you can easily fill your class.

If you have a large acceptance list and a large waitlist, and people decide for whatever reason to matriculate disproportionately in favor of your school, you run into to possibility of over-enrolling. The only real downside to a smaller admit list and a larger waitlist is that some of the superstar students might be missed out on if you choose to accept people that are more likely to attend your school but might not be quite as superstar, but that's probably, in admissions deans' minds, worth forgoing the risk of over-enrolling.

However, the main exception to this is Harvard, who has a normal acceptance profile for a top school, a low post-interview acceptance rate with a fairly high number of interviews, but an incredibly small (like 30 people) waitlist. There are also quite a few people (like myself) who are only accepted to a single top school and thus don't really factor into this equation in terms of choosing between schools.
Click to expand...

This reasoning seems sound to me. I would imagine that the initial acceptance list is relatively short and then more acceptances are handed out gradually, as the waitlist gets smaller because waitlistees drop out and attend another institution for whatever reason.

Although I'm sure top institutions have low acceptance/interview ratios at least in part due to the fact that they're allowed to be more picky, there are also other non-top institutions that also have low acceptance/interview ratios and I just believed this to be because of the heavy use of waitlists and to avoid over-enrollment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Submitting an Update Letter About Conference Acceptance
Replies
2
Views
400
PickaGodnPray
PickaGodnPray
I
Cancelling an interview without an acceptance?
Replies
4
Views
1K
LindaAccepted
LindaAccepted
FutureDOCTORR123456789
how many hours in research should I get
Replies
1
Views
226
CheeesyBoi
CheeesyBoi
rose1101
Submit app before or after getting MCAT score?
Replies
2
Views
530
Faha
F
M
How many applicants have type 1 diabetes?
Replies
7
Views
519
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top