How much weight does the interview have on admissions

[Chankovsky]

---

Members don't see this ad.

How much weight does the interview hold. I've once heard of the saying that "...the interview can break you, but it won't make you." Is this generally true? Any discussion here would be greatly appreciated.

 

[striped sweater]

How much weight does the interview hold. I've once heard of the saying that "...the interview can break you, but it won't make you." Is this generally true? Any discussion here would be greatly appreciated.

several threads on this... do a search.

 

[bigdan]

I'd say it can make you, too.

Something has to make you stand out. It may be your 3.99/42, or it may be your interview to strengthen your 3.4/27. Once you get an interview, your chances at acceptance are statistically very good; a good interview can lock it up for ya.

dc

 

[fever5]

I would advise seeing the weight of the interview if the school provides one.

I have heard of several people with near perfect GPAs and >=12 MCAT scores and being broken in the interview.

My philsophy (opinions):

top grades + MCAT = interview is yours to lose (i.e. no health care experience, not social, difficulty answering questions), but more or less you have acceptance provided it goes smoothly

average grades + average MCAT = interview can make or break you

bottom = interview is probably the only hope one has, but it better be story book exceptional

Most schools vary on how much the interview is worth.

I don't think in general interview will save one from poor marks, because there are just too many people with likely better scores

 

[brats800]

really depends on the school. after the interviews were over at MCW, they told us something like 'we wouldn't have invited you here if we didn't feel you were academically good enough. so pretty much your interview is the deciding factor on if we invite you.' that might be a slight exaggeration, i don't remember exactly what they said, but that's what i heard them say at least. 😉

 

[Megalofyia]

Yeah I've been told that sort of stuff before.. I think people would like to think that the interviews count for more than they do. And it maybe at SOME schools that it does count for a quite a bit but I think that they are more of an after the fact sort of screening tool worth as about as much as the secondary.

 

[JAMMAN]

I have interviewed many medical school applicants and have been a voting member on the admissions board at one medical school.

I will tell you this. Your GPA and MCATs determine whether or not you will get an interview. If you get an interview, then it will weigh quite heavily on your admission. If you distinguish yourself, then you have a much better chance of getting in because at least two of your interviewers are on the board. If you fumble all over yourself, then you chances of being rejected are much higher. If you simply look like an average applicant, then you will be placed somewhere in the middle of the pile.

My experience has been that strong interviewers have gotten accepted first.

I should also point out, that your application, especially your personal statement and extracurricular activities ware heavily scrutinized by the interviewers and it carries alot of weight when making final decisions. You must distiguish yourself from the other candidates to gain admission.

 

[leechy]

It probably varies from school to school. As I've said many times on similar threads, my guess is that the interview weighs more heavily for borderline candidates than for those who are strong on paper. This probably gets thrown out the window for more elite schools, though (with the exception of numbers ******).

What I like to do is go on mdapplicants and view by school, and see if there's much of an MCAT or GPA difference between those who got interviews and were then accepted, and those who got interviews and were then rejected. For some schools, there's a definite gap. For other schools, like Harvard, there's no difference. This tends to match up well with common knowledge about which schools are "numbers ******" and which schools are more subjective in their admissions.

 

[camisho]

I'm kind of confused...is 3.2 and a 32 mediocre/avg. or bottom? This is not considering "top" schools.

 

[Pyroclast]

I got extremely early interviews at the University of Louisville and University of Kentucky with my application. After a good interview at U of L, I got accepted right away, and after a mediocre interview at UK, I got a big fat "maybe". So I'd say in my experience the interview was the deciding factor. When you consider that schools generally interview a lot more people than they have open spots, I'd guess that the interview is important. Though naturally if you look fantastic on paper having a great interview should be less crucial.

 

[pushkin]

I have interviewed many medical school applicants and have been a voting member on the admissions board at one medical school.

I will tell you this. Your GPA and MCATs determine whether or not you will get an interview. If you get an interview, then it will weigh quite heavily on your admission. If you distinguish yourself, then you have a much better chance of getting in because at least two of your interviewers are on the board. If you fumble all over yourself, then you chances of being rejected are much higher. If you simply look like an average applicant, then you will be placed somewhere in the middle of the pile.

My experience has been that strong interviewers have gotten accepted first.

I should also point out, that your application, especially your personal statement and extracurricular activities ware heavily scrutinized by the interviewers and it carries alot of weight when making final decisions. You must distiguish yourself from the other candidates to gain admission.

Thanks for giving us your insights! It's quite helpful to hear.

I have been to 6 interviews so far, and all of them seemed to go well from my perspective. I really enjoyed talking to the students and faculty and felt that we had nice conversations. But I guess what I find hard to understand is how, in the space of little more than a 25-minute conversation, an interviewer can really get a sense of any of the applicants they meet. I mean, how do people "stand out" during such a short, ultimately superficial encounter? Especially in the blind interviews, which are just sales pitches if you ask me. In real life the peope that usually "wow" me as far as first impressions go often don't remain that way in my view later on. I know this to be the case, so when I meet people for the first time it's hard for me to be overly OR underly impressed by anything they say. I guess when I hear about how applicants need to "stand out" during the interview, I have to wonder, "wow, are the interviewers all really naive? Is this like a beauty pageant where we're being scored on our 'poise'?" I mean, you don't get that much to go on in 25 minutes or so, unless the applicant REALLY fumbles, but given the people I've met on the interview trail, I doubt that's too common.

Or do you see huge differences between applicants? If so, where do they appear? Most of the applicants I've been meeting seem like nice, well-intentioned people who I'd want to take longer to really get to know. However, I wasn't interviewing them... I'd love to hear more about what you think.

 

[Creatine]

Thanks for giving us your insights! It's quite helpful to hear.

I have been to 6 interviews so far, and all of them seemed to go well from my perspective. I really enjoyed talking to the students and faculty and felt that we had nice conversations. But I guess what I find hard to understand is how, in the space of little more than a 25-minute conversation, an interviewer can really get a sense of any of the applicants they meet. I mean, how do people "stand out" during such a short, ultimately superficial encounter? Especially in the blind interviews, which are just sales pitches if you ask me. In real life the peope that usually "wow" me as far as first impressions go often don't remain that way in my view later on. I know this to be the case, so when I meet people for the first time it's hard for me to be overly OR underly impressed by anything they say. I guess when I hear about how applicants need to "stand out" during the interview, I have to wonder, "wow, are the interviewers all really naive? Is this like a beauty pageant where we're being scored on our 'poise'?" I mean, you don't get that much to go on in 25 minutes or so, unless the applicant REALLY fumbles, but given the people I've met on the interview trail, I doubt that's too common.

Or do you see huge differences between applicants? If so, where do they appear? Most of the applicants I've been meeting seem like nice, well-intentioned people who I'd want to take longer to really get to know. However, I wasn't interviewing them... I'd love to hear more about what you think.

Some people can "fake it" for 25 minutes, but it would be hard to "fake it" for several years. That's where letters of reccomendation come in.

 

[Khenon]

I have interviewed many medical school applicants and have been a voting member on the admissions board at one medical school.

I will tell you this. Your GPA and MCATs determine whether or not you will get an interview. If you get an interview, then it will weigh quite heavily on your admission. If you distinguish yourself, then you have a much better chance of getting in because at least two of your interviewers are on the board. If you fumble all over yourself, then you chances of being rejected are much higher. If you simply look like an average applicant, then you will be placed somewhere in the middle of the pile.

My experience has been that strong interviewers have gotten accepted first.

I should also point out, that your application, especially your personal statement and extracurricular activities ware heavily scrutinized by the interviewers and it carries alot of weight when making final decisions. You must distiguish yourself from the other candidates to gain admission.

I completely agree, and not because I have the experience of actually being a committee member. However, two of my friends applied to med school several years ago. One got in, but only after being rejected by several other schools that interviewed him . . . I think he came off as arrogant. My other friend didn't get in anywhere after interviews, and I'm sure it was because she was immmature and didn't have an ounce of life experience (mommy and daddy pretty much took care of her during undergrad). Both these people had all the numbers, EC's, clinical, etc. I'm positive their interviews are what blew it for them.

I think the interview is a big deal guys. And I'm not saying this because I have a bunch of interviews (zero, as of today). Adcoms thought you were worth their time to talk to personally, so if you blow it, it's not going to look good. I'd take it pretty seriously. Now if I could only get an interview to take seriously . . . 😳

 

[fun8stuff]

I completely agree, and not because I have the experience of actually being a committee member. However, two of my friends applied to med school several years ago. One got in, but only after being rejected by several other schools that interviewed him . . . I think he came off as arrogant. My other friend didn't get in anywhere after interviews, and I'm sure it was because she was immmature and didn't have an ounce of life experience (mommy and daddy pretty much took care of her during undergrad). Both these people had all the numbers, EC's, clinical, etc. I'm positive their interviews are what blew it for them.

I think the interview is a big deal guys. And I'm not saying this because I have a bunch of interviews (zero, as of today). Adcoms thought you were worth their time to talk to personally, so if you blow it, it's not going to look good. I'd take it pretty seriously. Now if I could only get an interview to take seriously . . . 😳

I too have had friends who, on paper, looked better than me, yet were rejected from the same schools that I have been accepted to (higher mcat, same high gpa, more clinical, more volunteer, more research, strong LORs). These 2 people were either immature or arrogant.. who knows. Whatever it was, the interview blew it for them... or possibly their essays. The interview can definately break you.

 

[lakersfan]

i think if have stellar scores, it cant really hurt u; if you are an average candidate though, a good interview will probably give you a few more points in teh eyes of the adcom

 

[45408]

How much weight does the interview hold. I've once heard of the saying that "...the interview can break you, but it won't make you." Is this generally true? Any discussion here would be greatly appreciated.

I'd go both ways.

Low numbers from someone who exudes charisma, charm and enthusiasm = sporting chance

High numbers from someone who mumbles, looks awful, and can't make eye contact = out the door

 

[pushkin]

I'd go both ways.

Low numbers from someone who exudes charisma, charm and enthusiasm = sporting chance

High numbers from someone who mumbles, looks awful, and can't make eye contact = out the door

But that's part of what I was trying to get at in my earlier post. Just cause someone has charisma and can make eye contact, how does that mean that they're smarter, more compassionate, or potentially more qualified? I mean, coming across as "enthusiastic" in an interview--is that really proof of someone's dedication? Just because someone might be shy at first, say, doesn't mean they're socially inept. We all know there's more to people than that. I don't see how useful it is to score people on "eye contact," "charm," "handshake quality," "enthusiasm(!)," etc., since those are all such rough estimators.

I guess I'm just saying that after going to several interviews, which were all perfectly enjoyable, I didn't find that I was being scrutinized in anything other than a fairly generic fashion most of the time. So if 6 times as many people are interviewed as are accepted, I can't see how the interview, as a tool, can differentiate people down to the level of 1/6. I'd say maybe it could reliably weed out the obvious offenders but that's about it.

 

[secretasianman]

But that's part of what I was trying to get at in my earlier post. Just cause someone has charisma and can make eye contact, how does that mean that they're smarter, more compassionate, or potentially more qualified? I mean, coming across as "enthusiastic" in an interview--is that really proof of someone's dedication? Just because someone might be shy at first, say, doesn't mean they're socially inept. We all know there's more to people than that. I don't see how useful it is to score people on "eye contact," "charm," "handshake quality," "enthusiasm(!)," etc., since those are all such rough estimators.

I guess I'm just saying that after going to several interviews, which were all perfectly enjoyable, I didn't find that I was being scrutinized in anything other than a fairly generic fashion most of the time. So if 6 times as many people are interviewed as are accepted, I can't see how the interview, as a tool, can differentiate people down to the level of 1/6. I'd say maybe it could reliably weed out the obvious offenders but that's about it.

i didn't feel like i had any idea how well an interview went after i had them... how are good interviews quantified? 😛.

 

[CarleneM]

But that's part of what I was trying to get at in my earlier post. Just cause someone has charisma and can make eye contact, how does that mean that they're smarter, more compassionate, or potentially more qualified? I mean, coming across as "enthusiastic" in an interview--is that really proof of someone's dedication? Just because someone might be shy at first, say, doesn't mean they're socially inept. We all know there's more to people than that. I don't see how useful it is to score people on "eye contact," "charm," "handshake quality," "enthusiasm(!)," etc., since those are all such rough estimators.

Although there are quite a few specialities out there where you don't have to have much patient contact, being a good physician means being a good communicator and connecting with people in positive, natural ways. Sure they train everyone to get a better bedside manner but I'm convinced that many folks either have it or they don't when it comes to charisma, compassion, etc. An interview is a chance for the school to get a glimpse of how you'll be talking to a patient who is a complete stranger. Yes, some people are shy at first but I think that in order to be good physician (again, provided you work with patients), you need to be reasonably comfortable conversing with strangers. I guess if you announce from the start you want to go into radiology, they probably won't care too much if you aren't all smiles and good eye contact. But even then, having good interpersonal skills is crucial to dealing with other professionals in whatever speciality you end up in. So I really do feel strongly that an interview is an essential piece in getting a good feel for an applicant.

 

[Neuronix]

How much weight does the interview hold. I've once heard of the saying that "...the interview can break you, but it won't make you." Is this generally true?

Yes. But, I've talked about this too many times, so I'm not going to explain again. Repost from: http://forums.drslounge.com/showthread.php?t=154468&page=2&pp=25

"Here's my take on the interview, for those of you who care.

90 - 95% of you will get about the same score on your interview. Most pre-meds have no compelling reason to be in medicine and a couple ECs they performed in undergrad. Most won't have the experience to make compelling arguments on controversial topics in medicine or on things they want to accomplish in medicine.

5% or so actually will have significant life experience that makes them uniquely prepared for the interview. This will back up their application and will probably boost them a bit.

5% or so will be crazy, completely anal-retentive, or have some other issues, and the interview will hurt them.

Take home message? The most important factor is still your application. For most, the interview just supports the application, but neither hurts nor helps. If you really think adcoms can separate you all out with a half hour or hour long interview, you're fooling yourself. Some schools do actually try (i.e. the UWash high stress interview), but I think that's silly personally."

 

[Mr. Seeds]

Yes. But, I've talked about this too many times, so I'm not going to explain again. Repost from: http://forums.drslounge.com/showthread.php?t=154468&page=2&pp=25

"Here's my take on the interview, for those of you who care.

90 - 95% of you will get about the same score on your interview. Most pre-meds have no compelling reason to be in medicine and a couple ECs they performed in undergrad. Most won't have the experience to make compelling arguments on controversial topics in medicine or on things they want to accomplish in medicine.

5% or so actually will have significant life experience that makes them uniquely prepared for the interview. This will back up their application and will probably boost them a bit.

5% or so will be crazy, completely anal-retentive, or have some other issues, and the interview will hurt them.

Take home message? The most important factor is still your application. For most, the interview just supports the application, but neither hurts nor helps. If you really think adcoms can separate you all out with a half hour or hour long interview, you're fooling yourself. Some schools do actually try (i.e. the UWash high stress interview), but I think that's silly personally."

I'm inclined to agree, though I have no experience as an interviewer. Also, it is typical that the interviewer is not even on the committee. They merely report their impressions to the committee, and report your answers to the questions that the committee wrote and gave to the interviewer to ask you. I suspect (again, no personal experience to substantiate this) that the committee would still rely very heavily on quantifiable data when weeding through 500 interviewee's apps. It seems almost absurd to believe that they would go through each application one by one, and try to compare and contrast the demeanor and charm of 500+ interviewees. Despite what they tell us, I really don't believe that all interviewees are on the same playing field before the interview.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.