How much do interviews matter?

[LolaLee]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I just interviewed at my top choice and feel like my interview was so-so, not great. It was the toughest interview I've had and I am kicking myself for not "selling" myself more and being more positive about the school. When they asked why I wanted to go to the school, I felt like I gave sort of a nonspecific answer. So I guess my question is- is the interview the determining factor (all they look at) once you've gotten one? Also, if you have a particularly tough interviewer do you think the school takes that into account. Thanks so much!

 

[Centinel]

I believe that the consensus has been that interviews are not informative to the interviewees. That is to say, it's hard for you to really gauge how much your interview helped/hurt you. The interview may have felt hard to you, but you may have given the best responses your (tough) interviewer has ever heard. Alternatively, you can have easy interviews that just don't impress your interviewer (although you think you rocked them because they felt so smooth).

Compound those problems with the fact that nobody has/will divulge the specific means by which you are evaluated - meaning you don't even know how important a great/horrible interview really is - and you can see that nobody can really answer your question.

Even once you find out that you did get into a school, you can never be sure that you got in because you rocked your interview - perhaps your numbers were just high enough to compensate for an average, or even near dismal, interview.

 

[Overeducated]

After the interview is over, the ball is in their court so you might as well block it out and not think about it--That's what I'm trying to do. There's just no way to truly know what impact your performance will have unless you completely bombed it or aced it. I'm pretty sure that at many schools if you have a strong application and a moderately good interview then you probably still have a good shot at getting in.

 

[unoriginal]

I just interviewed at my top choice and feel like my interview was so-so, not great. It was the toughest interview I've had and I am kicking myself for not "selling" myself more and being more positive about the school. When they asked why I wanted to go to the school, I felt like I gave sort of a nonspecific answer. So I guess my question is- is the interview the determining factor (all they look at) once you've gotten one? Also, if you have a particularly tough interviewer do you think the school takes that into account. Thanks so much!

It varies from school to school. At some schools, the interview is not so important- only a method of screening out applicants with negative personality traits. While at others, the interview is the deciding factor. At these schools where it is important, your GPA and MCAT are what got you the interview- but how well you interview gets you accepted. How do you find out? I toured 4 of my local schools before I applied (With premed club) and asked them this vary question and these were the answers I got.

 

[funshine]

I agree that interviews are the most frustrating part of this whole process--i.e. I feel like I have almost no control over them. I don't consistently present myself well, and I feel like the quality of my interviews is entirely dependent on my interviewer...which I guess is MY fault, b/c I am supposed to "take control" right? But when you're nervous and the interviewer looks disinterested and hurried, then it's hard NOT to cut your answers short. It really is just luck of the draw. Sometimes, I've been lucky enough to get wonderful interviewers who really could relate to what I was saying, and thus made me feel comfortable enough open up and share who I really was. Other times, I'm asked to elaborate on a personal or sensitive issue, and I just clam up or say something very trivial, because their gaze looks totally vacant and I can tell they have no clue what I'm talking about. Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I've also noticed that I've had wonderful interview experiences w/ women, whereas my interview experiences w/ men range from mediocre to awful. I'm sure part of the reason is that I'm more comfortable around women to begin with. BUT, I've also noticed some of my male interviewers did not understand portions of my personal statement. I guess I made some subtle points in my essay, and whereas the women could understand what I was implying, the men did not. Well, here's hoping the rest of my interviews are w/ female faculty 😳

 

[ShyRem]

funshine, I've had totally the opposite experience. But I also have more male friends than female ones. For some weird reason, women seem to feel threatened by me, no matter how friendly or unfriendly I am... my husband says my strong personality can be a bit off-putting (although strangely enough I'm really quite shy). I'm a rather direct person and find that men tend to react better to that then women. Good luck, funshine! I'm sure you'll do just fine. 🙂

 

[funshine]

funshine, I've had totally the opposite experience. But I also have more male friends than female ones. For some weird reason, women seem to feel threatened by me, no matter how friendly or unfriendly I am... my husband says my strong personality can be a bit off-putting (although strangely enough I'm really quite shy). I'm a rather direct person and find that men tend to react better to that then women. Good luck, funshine! I'm sure you'll do just fine. 🙂

Thanks, ShyRem 🙂 , good luck to you too! I've interviewed with several non-trads, and I'm so impressed w/ their maturity. You guys are a tough act to follow, esp. in group interviews! Anyway, I've had several interesting interview experiences and have formed some very distinct impressions of several schools. I'm going to wait a bit before I post interview feedback on specific schools. Still paranoid that schools check this thing and will figure out who I am 😛

 

[MoosePilot]

How many of you encountered "poker faced" interviewers? I had an interview at one school where both interviewers were "readable". One went so far as to say that I would be ranked the highest of any interview he'd conducted. I interviewed at another school where I couldn't tell how I did at all. They were just so stone faced.

Anyone? I'd love to hear what people thought, because I'm assuming the second one went badly, but I've been told that I interview very well, so I certainly didn't expect it.

 

[greendot]

How many of you encountered "poker faced" interviewers? I had an interview at one school where both interviewers were "readable". One went so far as to say that I would be ranked the highest of any interview he'd conducted. I interviewed at another school where I couldn't tell how I did at all. They were just so stone faced.

Anyone? I'd love to hear what people thought, because I'm assuming the second one went badly, but I've been told that I interview very well, so I certainly didn't expect it.

I've had one interview so far where my interviewer was "poker faced." I didn't let it get to me, as he had a blank expression from the beginning of the interview and nothing I said changed it. He was also of the type to ask a question and let me answer, and when I finally stopped he'd say, "Is that all?" or "What else?"

Don't assume it went badly. Some interviewers are like that, and it doesn't reflect negatively on you. Actually, I heard an anecdote at one of the schools where I've interviewed where one of the admissions staff told of a former applicant who, after the interview, requested another because the interviewee felt sure that the interview had gone badly and that she wasn't able to properly express herself. Before granting the second interview, the admissions staff went to the committee meeting to hear what the interviewer had to say, and it turned out that the interviewer really liked the applicant, and pushed for her acceptance.

 

[MollyMalone]

How many of you encountered "poker faced" interviewers? I had an interview at one school where both interviewers were "readable". One went so far as to say that I would be ranked the highest of any interview he'd conducted. I interviewed at another school where I couldn't tell how I did at all. They were just so stone faced.

Anyone? I'd love to hear what people thought, because I'm assuming the second one went badly, but I've been told that I interview very well, so I certainly didn't expect it.

Thus far, I've had one "open book," one "stone-face," and one in-between. I'm just hoping that "stone-face" doesn't really equal "bad," but instead is just the way that particular person was. I've also been told that I interview well, so, who knows?? I guess we'll find out one way or the other eventually. It's hard not to keep thinking about it, though.

 

[Shredder]

I just interviewed at my top choice and feel like my interview was so-so, not great. It was the toughest interview I've had and I am kicking myself for not "selling" myself more and being more positive about the school. When they asked why I wanted to go to the school, I felt like I gave sort of a nonspecific answer. So I guess my question is- is the interview the determining factor (all they look at) once you've gotten one? Also, if you have a particularly tough interviewer do you think the school takes that into account. Thanks so much!

i think they matter a lot. once you get one, IMO the ball is completely in your court. like a penalty kick to win or lose the game in soccer. or a game winning free throw in bball. you get the idea. all of this business about how the school should be a mutual good fit--its true, but the "fit" can be figured out by preparing and researching beforehand. if im rejected from anywhere that i interview, i will consider it utter failure on my part to sell myself properly

 

[45408]

at MCW, once you're offered an interview, the decision pretty much then rides on your interview. So, yeah, they matter a lot.

 

[rpkall]

I think it really depends on the school and it depends on what kind of applicant you are.

Some schools will reject you if you're statistically overqualified and your interview wasn't GREAT (state schools or schools with a commitment to providing health care to a local area). The higher your stats, the more you travel = more likely you'll go right home again after the 4 years.

Some schools will accept you if your stats are good, even if your interview was awful (usually safeties looking to boost their own stats on the entering class).

Some schools may be looking for people who have clinical experience and who rock the interview--and be willing to take a hit on statistics (schools that are having issues with their students transitioning from the classroom to clinicals).

The big scam is that most people would be able to pass med school--it's not about intellect as much as it's about determination and motivation. Being a good physician isn't about getting A's on tests, either. It's about time management, stress management, judgment, ethics, business, and a genuine compassion for the patients.

The whole admissions process is designed to weed out the people who "don't want it bad enough," so that they don't take up valuable space at med school, pull down class morale, and be ineffective clinicians one day. 👍

 

[DrHuang]

I think it really depends on the school and it depends on what kind of applicant you are...

best response ive seen 👍 👍

 

[Law2Doc]

I think it really depends on the school and it depends on what kind of applicant you are.

Some schools will reject you if you're statistically overqualified and your interview wasn't GREAT (state schools or schools with a commitment to providing health care to a local area). The higher your stats, the more you travel = more likely you'll go right home again after the 4 years.

Some schools will accept you if your stats are good, even if your interview was awful (usually safeties looking to boost their own stats on the entering class).

Some schools may be looking for people who have clinical experience and who rock the interview--and be willing to take a hit on statistics (schools that are having issues with their students transitioning from the classroom to clinicals).

The big scam is that most people would be able to pass med school--it's not about intellect as much as it's about determination and motivation. Being a good physician isn't about getting A's on tests, either. It's about time management, stress management, judgment, ethics, business, and a genuine compassion for the patients.

The whole admissions process is designed to weed out the people who "don't want it bad enough," so that they don't take up valuable space at med school, pull down class morale, and be ineffective clinicians one day. 👍

My experience has been that at most schools the interview is hugely important. Schools screen through applications and invite that group they'd like to take a further look at. At the vast majority of places, all those invited in to interviews are deemed equally acceptable for admission (and in some places their file is closed altogether), at others (actually more rare), there are groups of applicants who must rock the interview to get in, while there are some applicants that would have to really be bad not to. The best applicant will not get into med school with a truly bad interview under either system. But in general, the interview is simply not a formality, and on average only about a quarter of those selected to interview get in, based largely on the performance at the interview. You will see many instances where the more dynamic, talkative applicant valuts past his or her more numerical stat gifted counterpart thanks to the interview, with the former student getting in and the latter at best ending up on the waitlist.
As for the above poster's first point, I suspect that attitude is pretty rare with med schools. I don't think any school is going to reject the overqualified student out of fear that they will go elsewhere in 4 years -- the percentage of students that remain at the same place for residency at any med school (even those with emphases on underserved areas) is generally very low. Most schools would prefer you to move on to other, better places so they can publish more impressive match lists.

 

[caffeine37]

I had a terrible interview a couple weeks ago. Everyone in the group was assigned an interviewer--some a student, some a faculty member--I got the dean of admissions. I was so nervous and intimidated that I was fumbling my words and I was just not acting like myself. The thing is, this is my top choice, and I am devastated that I just ruined my chances. Is there anything I can do at this point?

 

[Poety]

Just so you guys may have a little bit of input from someone whos been there... I interviewed at a state school as an out -of -state applicant. I wasnt the strongest candidate by any means (I had different strong points in my app) and ultimately I was accepted.

About a year into med school, my interviewer (he was the anatomy professor) was talking to me because I was like 'I hate this, I hate school, I miss my family, I want a life again blah blah," and he said and I quote "I went to BAT FOR YOU IN THAT BOARD ROOM, SO YOU PROMISE ME RIGHT NOW YOU'LL NEVER QUIT" So I didn't quit - I'm fourth year now 🙂

But I guess my point is, in some instances the interview WILL make or break you. If you happen to get the interviewer that will go to bat for you - your good. If you get the one that wasn't impressed at all - you might end up being looked over.

Oh, and from what I've come to learn - in these board meetings over who's getting accepted and whos getting declined - theres a LOT OF hot debating and professors fighting for the ones they want - so get on their good sides! 😀

 

[unoriginal]

Some schools will reject you if you're statistically overqualified and your interview wasn't GREAT (state schools or schools with a commitment to providing health care to a local area). The higher your stats, the more you travel = more likely you'll go right home again after the 4 years.

wow, you have a great imagination... 100% not true on this point.

 

[singh0113]

Does anyone know if a short interview means anything? My interview lasted 15 minutes and would have lasted only 10 minutes if I didn't ask the interviewer any questions. Does a short interview show lack of interest from a school/interviewer? Everybody else that day had at least a 20-25 minute interview (but with a different person, I was the only one interviewed by my interviewer that day).

The interviewer didn't even ask any medical ethics questions even though their PhD was in medical ethics. They had a very congenial manner even when it seemed to me that my answer was horribly bad. They smiled at almost everything I said or was stone faced at a few points. They even asked me about high school science projects. I have no idea about how to understand that interview experience. I hope a short interview isn't a bad thing. Sorry for rambling.

 

[BOBODR]

I am usually a good interviewee but I think I really messed up my last interview. Here was the situtation... I had a student interviewer and we had a pretty good half hour conversation and then the final question was "what is the craziest thing you and your roomates have ever done?" I was completely disarmed and didnt know what to say. I didnt want to say something lame like we studied 73 hours in a row for an organic test one time, but i didnt want to say one time we kegs in a laundry bag around campus (or something). So I panicked and was trying to think of something and said "I am trying to think of something appropiate for a med school interview". (disclaimer - I have an insitutional action on my application for drinking). Now I think that my interviewer thinks that I have done a ton of inappropiate stuff during college (not true because I said that line). My story wound up being how one of my roomates did something dumb but I wasnt there. I dont think he believed I wasnt there (I wasn't). What should I have said to this question. I kind of think it was unfair. Probably cost me a good shot at the school.

 

[LolaLee]

BOBODR...I don't think that was as big a deal as you think. If it had been a faculty interviewer, then maybe that comment would have made a difference, but a student interviewer could probably relate. Don't worry...

I think what's tough about interviews is that it is hard to read what the interviewer is thinking. I had one or two interviewers that were encouraging during my interview but for my other interviews, it was really hard to tell. Is that bad or do we just chalk that up to the interviewer's style?

 

[radioh3ad]

it's great this discussion stuff. but i dont take anybody's opinion here too seriously unless they've been on the admissions committees.

that said, very few of those said people would come on here and divulge their secrets.

adcom info>matriculated student info>premed info

i had an interviewer who was very open with his opinion of me. that is : doubtful. so he basically had me try to convince him. i don't know if i did a good job because he had quite a poker face. but our interview lasted over an hour.

tough to think about. it's been my first and only interview.

 

[BOBODR]

BOBODR...I don't think that was as big a deal as you think. If it had been a faculty interviewer, then maybe that comment would have made a difference, but a student interviewer could probably relate. Don't worry...

I think what's tough about interviews is that it is hard to read what the interviewer is thinking. I had one or two interviewers that were encouraging during my interview but for my other interviews, it was really hard to tell. Is that bad or do we just chalk that up to the interviewer's style?

It is tearing me up because I am a reapplicant and just want in. I thought I had a good chance at this school too. If it was a faculty interviewer I would have just said we never really did anything crazy or said something lame. BUT with a student I doubt they would believe it (the guy seemed cool) if I said nothing (esp since I have violation on my record) and If it was me doing the interview I would rather have something honest and interesting rather than an obvious lie. I mean everyone every medical student has done some crazy stuff during undergrad. Can schools reject post interview pre 10/15?

 

[oompa loompa]

Gosh, this thread is WAY depressing. Come acceptance time, I'll let you guys know whether I get in despite my awful interviews. Honestly, I don't think interviews are the end all, because in the interviews I've been to so far, I haven't been terribly impressed with most of my fellow applicants. I try to talk to everyone, and only one or two at each interview have struck me as being really polished and mature. Of course, people could pull out the BS and really impress during interview...I don't know, and don't want to know. I agree that when the ADCOMs meet and decide who to accept, heated debates probably DO take place. I sure hope the person stepping up to bat for you isn't always your interviewer. In my case, it better not be.

 

[Law2Doc]

Does anyone know if a short interview means anything? My interview lasted 15 minutes and would have lasted only 10 minutes if I didn't ask the interviewer any questions. Does a short interview show lack of interest from a school/interviewer? Everybody else that day had at least a 20-25 minute interview (but with a different person, I was the only one interviewed by my interviewer that day).

The interviewer didn't even ask any medical ethics questions even though their PhD was in medical ethics. They had a very congenial manner even when it seemed to me that my answer was horribly bad. They smiled at almost everything I said or was stone faced at a few points. They even asked me about high school science projects. I have no idea about how to understand that interview experience. I hope a short interview isn't a bad thing. Sorry for rambling.

While I can conceive of a short interview not hurting you if the interviewer had other things going on, the best interviews usually tend to be those where the conversation goes so well that the interviewer keeps you past the alloted time, and never even gives you a chance to ask your prepared questions.

 

[Indryd]

I am usually a good interviewee but I think I really messed up my last interview. Here was the situtation... I had a student interviewer and we had a pretty good half hour conversation and then the final question was "what is the craziest thing you and your roomates have ever done?" I was completely disarmed and didnt know what to say. I didnt want to say something lame like we studied 73 hours in a row for an organic test one time, but i didnt want to say one time we kegs in a laundry bag around campus (or something). So I panicked and was trying to think of something and said "I am trying to think of something appropiate for a med school interview". (disclaimer - I have an insitutional action on my application for drinking). Now I think that my interviewer thinks that I have done a ton of inappropiate stuff during college (not true because I said that line). My story wound up being how one of my roomates did something dumb but I wasnt there. I dont think he believed I wasnt there (I wasn't). What should I have said to this question. I kind of think it was unfair. Probably cost me a good shot at the school.

When this happens, they are looking for how you handle a stressful, ambiguous situation. WHAT you said is meaningless except as a gauge for HOW you were handling the mental stress of the immediate moment.

 

[QofQuimica]

I agree with whichever poster said that you shouldn't worry about your interview performance post-interview, b/c now your app is out of your hands. But I wanted to let everyone here know if you didn't already that you can request a new interview at some schools if you felt that your first interview didn't give you the opportunity to really express yourself and make a strong case for yourself. Generally what you need to do is contact the admissions office and tell them you would like to be re-interviewed, and they will put you in touch with the right person. The one caveat is that if they have already made a decision about you, they probably won't let you re-interview. So you should ask right away, preferably the day you interview, if you think that a new interview is necessary.

 

[MoosePilot]

it's great this discussion stuff. but i dont take anybody's opinion here too seriously unless they've been on the admissions committees.

that said, very few of those said people would come on here and divulge their secrets.

adcom info>matriculated student info>premed info

i had an interviewer who was very open with his opinion of me. that is : doubtful. so he basically had me try to convince him. i don't know if i did a good job because he had quite a poker face. but our interview lasted over an hour.

tough to think about. it's been my first and only interview.

Interviewer actually said you were iffy going into the interview? I wonder if that was on purpose to induce stress?!

I thought about this from the perspective that I'd love to have had feedback, but they can't really give feedback on the spot, because if it's bad, then some interviewees would become confrontational or might cry or something. If you say when it's good, but not bad, then it's not really that effective, because the ones who don't hear anything might not know that means average to bad. So we're somewhat stuck with the present system. I think perhaps the admissions office could brief interviewees at the end of the day after making it clear that they won't accept further input... what do you all think? Is there anyway interviewers or admissions committee could give you feedback on your performance before the final decision without mucking everything up? How would you accomplish that if you were in charge?

 

[amand0r]

Interviewer actually said you were iffy going into the interview? I wonder if that was on purpose to induce stress?!

I thought about this from the perspective that I'd love to have had feedback, but they can't really give feedback on the spot, because if it's bad, then some interviewees would become confrontational or might cry or something. If you say when it's good, but not bad, then it's not really that effective, because the ones who don't hear anything might not know that means average to bad. So we're somewhat stuck with the present system. I think perhaps the admissions office could brief interviewees at the end of the day after making it clear that they won't accept further input... what do you all think? Is there anyway interviewers or admissions committee could give you feedback on your performance before the final decision without mucking everything up? How would you accomplish that if you were in charge?

I don't know about before the final decision, but I did always think it would be nice if they included a short paragraph in any decision letter received giving feedback on why you were rejected, accepted, or waitlisted.

 

[radioh3ad]

Interviewer actually said you were iffy going into the interview? I wonder if that was on purpose to induce stress?!

I thought about this from the perspective that I'd love to have had feedback, but they can't really give feedback on the spot, because if it's bad, then some interviewees would become confrontational or might cry or something. If you say when it's good, but not bad, then it's not really that effective, because the ones who don't hear anything might not know that means average to bad. So we're somewhat stuck with the present system. I think perhaps the admissions office could brief interviewees at the end of the day after making it clear that they won't accept further input... what do you all think? Is there anyway interviewers or admissions committee could give you feedback on your performance before the final decision without mucking everything up? How would you accomplish that if you were in charge?

i'm honestly not sure what to think. it seemed he enjoyed talking to me since we went over the time allotment, but he's kept a very dry demeanor. like the guy in my avatar.

it was stressful, but i think i played enough confidence considering it was my first interview evar!!!111one