Hi all,
Have a bit of a thought experiment. Currently, schools are likely sending the same amount of interviews as they did last year because its what they know based on many years of data. However, last year, students who had no intentions of ever attending a school when already accepted by their preferred schools just did not attend the interview due to the cost of travel (perhaps). So those spots opened up for other students, who go to the interview and maybe it becomes their one interview. If accepted these students have no choice but to attend that school. So these schools are filled with students who chose the school and those who this is far off from their number one choice but must attend if they want to become a doctor.
So for interviews that occur later in this cycle may have a different representative group. Last year, when students had to travel, students who actually attend an interview likely intended to go to that school but this year people attend because they easily can blocking opportunities from those who would actually enroll.
Based on this muddled thought process, is it possible that when people have to declare their 3 schools come April some schools may be left without enough acceptances because they would have interviewed a high proportion of individuals who never intended to attend but interviewed because its costs nothing?
True or not, I've seen some students have 10+ interviews and attend all of them. Maybe in a regular year, they attend 5, get their acceptance and stop attending. They also could not be very representative of the application pool, so could be one-offs. I recall there being some stats posted on sdn a while ago but not sure if it's going to hold true for this year due to everything going on.
Since the news traffic rules that began last year, schools are blind to students who have acceptances so they possibly could just keep sending invites to people who already have their top choice but don't want to cancel.
Since most schools end interviews in feb/early march they could be unexpectedly hit with this. Maybe skewing their applicant pool or worst case unable to fill a class.
If someone has 10 interviews and chooses to attend all 10, they have every right to do so (although it hurts others). Because we can't rely on people to be altruistic in this process, shouldn't schools be compensating?
So, to compensate for this - if what I have said above makes sense - shouldn't schools be actually interviewing far more students than previous years, creating a bigger than usual waitlist then pulling from this in April at a larger than usual amount? I understand interviewing more people would also be hard because of the manpower needed/ COVID still around/ Interviewers are typically healthcare workers - so time spent battling COVID. But, are there any indications this is happening, or is it just business as usual?
Am I overthinking this? LOL
Have a bit of a thought experiment. Currently, schools are likely sending the same amount of interviews as they did last year because its what they know based on many years of data. However, last year, students who had no intentions of ever attending a school when already accepted by their preferred schools just did not attend the interview due to the cost of travel (perhaps). So those spots opened up for other students, who go to the interview and maybe it becomes their one interview. If accepted these students have no choice but to attend that school. So these schools are filled with students who chose the school and those who this is far off from their number one choice but must attend if they want to become a doctor.
So for interviews that occur later in this cycle may have a different representative group. Last year, when students had to travel, students who actually attend an interview likely intended to go to that school but this year people attend because they easily can blocking opportunities from those who would actually enroll.
Based on this muddled thought process, is it possible that when people have to declare their 3 schools come April some schools may be left without enough acceptances because they would have interviewed a high proportion of individuals who never intended to attend but interviewed because its costs nothing?
True or not, I've seen some students have 10+ interviews and attend all of them. Maybe in a regular year, they attend 5, get their acceptance and stop attending. They also could not be very representative of the application pool, so could be one-offs. I recall there being some stats posted on sdn a while ago but not sure if it's going to hold true for this year due to everything going on.
Since the news traffic rules that began last year, schools are blind to students who have acceptances so they possibly could just keep sending invites to people who already have their top choice but don't want to cancel.
Since most schools end interviews in feb/early march they could be unexpectedly hit with this. Maybe skewing their applicant pool or worst case unable to fill a class.
If someone has 10 interviews and chooses to attend all 10, they have every right to do so (although it hurts others). Because we can't rely on people to be altruistic in this process, shouldn't schools be compensating?
So, to compensate for this - if what I have said above makes sense - shouldn't schools be actually interviewing far more students than previous years, creating a bigger than usual waitlist then pulling from this in April at a larger than usual amount? I understand interviewing more people would also be hard because of the manpower needed/ COVID still around/ Interviewers are typically healthcare workers - so time spent battling COVID. But, are there any indications this is happening, or is it just business as usual?
Am I overthinking this? LOL
Last edited:
