how much decision making power does the interviewer have?

[1passbbsSHAVE]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Let's say that someone got invited to an interview to a school.
They could either have a really good interview or a really bad one.

If the interview was bad or mediocre, it could probably lead to a rejection or most likely a waitlist.
If the interview really went well, how much power does the interviewer have in the decision to get you in.

I know they have to all meet together and discuss who to get accept, etc,

but what is the exact process and how much of "say" does the interviewer have?



I think I read a thread where some people thought they did awesome at the interview and the interviewer said that they were impressed, but ended up getting waitlist. Is this the case of majority of adcom not liking you vs interviewer who liked you?

 

[JLT223]

Not as much power as you'd think. The interviewer is basically an intermediate to relay things you said. As one interviewer told me, they are looking for reasons to not accept people, as most people interviewed are on the same page.

 

[hellofuturedentists]

Let's say that someone got invited to an interview to a school.
They could either have a really good interview or a really bad one.

If the interview was bad or mediocre, it could probably lead to a rejection or most likely a waitlist.
If the interview really went well, how much power does the interviewer have in the decision to get you in.

I know they have to all meet together and discuss who to get accept, etc,

but what is the exact process and how much of "say" does the interviewer have?



I think I read a thread where some people thought they did awesome at the interview and the interviewer said that they were impressed, but ended up getting waitlist. Is this the case of majority of adcom not liking you vs interviewer who liked you?

For the people thinking they did awesome and end up getting waitlisted, there are multiple possible reasons:
1. (most likely, in my opinion) they didn't do as well as they thought they did
2. they did well, but others did better in comparison
3. they did well, but not necessarily well enough to be accepted/outweigh anything bad on an application
4. they did well, but did not fit the school's mission.

I agree with what JLT said. Most interviewers are supposed to relay things. I remember at one of my interviews, the interviewers were literally just supposed to write down what you said to specific questions and not ask any follow ups so the playing field would be level

 

[Advance]

For the people thinking they did awesome and end up getting waitlisted, there are multiple possible reasons:
1. (most likely, in my opinion) they didn't do as well as they thought they did
2. they did well, but others did better in comparison
3. they did well, but not necessarily well enough to be accepted/outweigh anything bad on an application
4. they did well, but did not fit the school's mission.

I agree with what JLT said. Most interviewers are supposed to relay things. I remember at one of my interviews, the interviewers were literally just supposed to write down what you said to specific questions and not ask any follow ups so the playing field would be level

Some of my interviewers didn't write anything down. I wonder how many things get lost in translation between the interviewer and the committee.

 

[JLT223]

Some of my interviewers didn't write anything down. I wonder how many things get lost in translation between the interviewer and the committee.

Bingo

 

[distressstudent]

I am going to say it depends on your interviewer.
For example, your interviewer could be a new part-time professor...or he/she could be the dean of admission

 

[doc toothache]

We can think of the interviewer, at worst, as a glorified secretary, but guess what? If we do not get past the secretary, we most certainly are not going to see the dean.

 

[hellofuturedentists]

I am going to say it depends on your interviewer.
For example, your interviewer could be a new part-time professor...or he/she could be the dean of admission

or it could be literally the entire admissions committee (happens at one school I've heard of. Maybe more)

 

[distressstudent]

or it could be literally the entire admissions committee (happens at one school I've heard of. Maybe more)

I imagine only school that does MMI can do that. But the largest MMI I had were still only five people total; that definitely wasn't their whole committee.

 

[Dr. Yap]

I imagine only school that does MMI can do that. But the largest MMI I had were still only five people total; that definitely wasn't their whole committee.

I interviewed at UAB and it was literally with the entire admissions committee. It was strange haha

 

[distressstudent]

I interviewed at UAB and it was literally with the entire admissions committee. It was strange haha

What's the format like?

 

[Dr. Yap]

What's the format like?

Weird but interesting! They called us in a room one by one and the entire committee was sitting at a table. The dean told us all beforehand that they like doing it this way so that the whole committee (minus maybe one or two people, depending on who's busy at the time) can hear what you have to say, meet you, etc. so that your fate isn't determined by one person. I totally understand their reasoning, and I kind of liked it that way 🙂

 

[taitanrikaaki]

.

 

[1passbbsSHAVE]

So, if the interviewer is merely going to relay the message about what I said to the questions asked to the admissions committee members and not have real strong opinions about applicants (like someone said, if they are to keep the playing field level and just write down answers objectively), I don't see how it's going to make any larger impact than personal statements and AADSAS app content. They might as well just gather and re-read the apps to decide to gets in and who doesn't.

I guess it's no uncommon to get waitlisted after thinking you did really well on the interview.

 

[JLT223]

Obviously the interviewer forms an opinion about the applicant. Most schools have a section for the interviewer to write down info about personal appearance/hygiene, ability to communicate effectively, etc. This info is shared with the committee and it plays a role in your admissions status. I'd take a person with a 3.4 who can speak well and hold a conversation over a person with a 3.9 who is afraid to talk anyday. This is the kind of stuff your "stats" or personal statement never show. These notes from the interviewer are solely opinions. That's why you have a committee to discuss them.

Temple's video interview was frightening, but it gets rid of all of this one person opinion notion. You speak to a camera and then your video is shown to the admissions committee as a whole.

 

[Advance]

Obviously the interviewer forms an opinion about the applicant. Most schools have a section for the interviewer to write down info about personal appearance/hygiene, ability to communicate effectively, etc. This info is shared with the committee and it plays a role in your admissions status. I'd take a kid with a 3.4 who can speak well and hold a conversation over a kid with a 3.9 who is afraid to talk anyday. This is the kind of stuff your "stats" or personal statement never show. These notes from the interviewer are solely opinions. That's why you have a committee to discuss them.

Temple's video interview was frightening, but it gets rid of all of this one person opinion notion. You speak to a camera and then your video is shown to the admissions committee as a whole.

UMKC also did this. I thought it felt pretty awkward... I ended up rambling about the Kansas City Royals winning the world series.
I guess it worked though...

 

[Dentalnerdz]

It's very case specific. I had the dean plus faculty members (all of which clearly are admissions committee members and carry a lot of decision power) and I also had a 4th year at one school- safe to assume the 4th year doesn't carry as much power as the dean haha.