If everyone is equal at interviews, how to explain GPA/MCAT trend?

[UrshumMurshum]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I've been searching old threads and see a lot of people claim that once you get to the interview, most schools put interviewees on equal footing.

However, that doesn't really sit well with the data which clearly shows a sharp increase in percent chance of getting accepted with increasing GPA+MCAT, all the way up to >91% for those with the highest stats.

What I mean is, if the interviews were conducted on a level playing field, you would expect that those past a certain threshold stats wise (so that they were able to get interviews) would have roughly equal percent chance of getting accepted on the average. The only disparity would be that those with higher stats might get even more interviews than those with lower stats which might explain some of the percent difference, but given the cost factor most people probably won't use that 7th or 8th interview anyway.

Not to say the interview isn't important, but given the data I think it's more accurate to think of it as a part of your application and not the sole determining force towards an acceptance.

Of course this varies by school.

For medical students how would you say the interview is used at your schools?

 

[Josh7]

I've been searching old threads and see a lot of people claim that once you get to the interview, most schools put interviewees on equal footing.

However, that doesn't really sit well with the data which clearly shows a sharp increase in percent chance of getting accepted with increasing GPA+MCAT, all the way up to >91% for those with the highest stats.

What I mean is, if the interviews were conducted on a level playing field, you would expect that those past a certain threshold stats wise (so that they were able to get interviews) would have roughly equal percent chance of getting accepted on the average. The only disparity would be that those with higher stats might get even more interviews than those with lower stats which might explain some of the percent difference, but given the cost factor most people probably won't use that 7th or 8th interview anyway.

Not to say the interview isn't important, but given the data I think it's more accurate to think of it as a part of your application and not the sole determining force towards an acceptance.

Of course this varies by school.

For medical students how would you say the interview is used at your schools?

You have to keep in mind that those with the highest stats will be given the most interviews.

 

[Narmerguy]

To be honest, I don't know where you're getting this. I've rarely seen anyone on SDN suggest that interviews are the most important part of getting an acceptance (that doesn't even make sense, you have to get an interview in the first place). Does anyone on SDN claim that interviews are the "sole determining force" behind acceptances?

Though I'm pretty sure this is a nonissue because I don't think there's even a reasonable amount of people who support the views you're supposedly debunking:


1) There is a huge difference in the ability to get interviews as your GPA/MCAT rises. There's no reason to assume someone with a 3.6/31 has the same chance of getting interviews as a 3.8/34. We would reasonably expect more interviews for those with higher stats, and thus, even if equal performance and if GPA/MCAT cease to matter, a higher acceptance rate simply because they have more chances.

2) An interview is an important chance to sell yourself, and for some schools if they deem you worthy of an interview, they consider you academically qualified for acceptance. However, this is obviously not the case for all schools. You can't say "I know this varies by school" but then frame your entire post around aggregated data for all schools. It may very well be that if you looked at only data for one school, there's a flat-line after a certain MCAT/GPA for their applicants because all that matters is the interview (which is still a rather absurd premise to apply to all schools).

3) Even if the interview is not the "sole" force in acceptance, MCAT/GPA may become less relevant with respect to interview performance at that stage. It doesn't mean nothing else matters, and thus one would still expect higher acceptance rates for those with higher MCAT/GPA's. Unless you're suggesting that people with lower stats are better interviewers, so long as MCAT/GPA play any role post interview, no matter how small, we would still expect higher acceptance rates for those with high MCAT/GPAs.

This seems pretty much like common sense.

 

[UrshumMurshum]

To be honest, I don't know where you're getting this. I've rarely seen anyone on SDN suggest that interviews are the most important part of getting an acceptance (that doesn't even make sense, you have to get an interview in the first place). Does anyone on SDN claim that interviews are the "sole determining force" behind acceptances?

Though I'm pretty sure this is a nonissue because I don't think there's even a reasonable amount of people who support the views you're supposedly debunking:


1) There is a huge difference in the ability to get interviews as your GPA/MCAT rises. There's no reason to assume someone with a 3.6/31 has the same chance of getting interviews as a 3.8/34. We would reasonably expect more interviews for those with higher stats, and thus, even if equal performance and if GPA/MCAT cease to matter, a higher acceptance rate simply because they have more chances.

2) An interview is an important chance to sell yourself, and for some schools if they deem you worthy of an interview, they consider you academically qualified for acceptance. However, this is obviously not the case for all schools. You can't say "I know this varies by school" but then frame your entire post around aggregated data for all schools. It may very well be that if you looked at only data for one school, there's a flat-line after a certain MCAT/GPA for their applicants because all that matters is the interview (which is still a rather absurd premise to apply to all schools).

3) Even if the interview is not the "sole" force in acceptance, MCAT/GPA may become less relevant with respect to interview performance at that stage. It doesn't mean nothing else matters, and thus one would still expect higher acceptance rates for those with higher MCAT/GPA's. Unless you're suggesting that people with lower stats are better interviewers, so long as MCAT/GPA play any role post interview, no matter how small, we would still expect higher acceptance rates for those with high MCAT/GPAs.

This seems pretty much like common sense.

Ya your first point I already addressed, that those with higher stats are presumed to get more interviews, but also being realistic there is probably a cieling to how many interviews on average a person will attend, regardless of chance of acceptance, simply due to cost which would limit this advantage. Also just from an intuitive perspective I doubt that extra interviews alone would explain the steep change in chances.

 

[Josh7]

Ya your first point I already addressed, that those with higher stats are presumed to get more interviews, but also being realistic there is probably a cieling to how many interviews on average a person will attend, regardless of chance of acceptance, simply due to cost which would limit this advantage. Also just from an intuitive perspective I doubt that extra interviews alone would explain the steep change in chances.

Not really. A school, for the most part, interviews people who already have the desired stats. The school is looking for the student to show why they would be a good fit for the school.

A student with terrible stats isn't going to get an interview at a medical school unless they had some big deal extracurriculars which they could talk about at interviews but I doubt that it happens super often.

 

[circulus vitios]

Contrary to what SDN thinks, it's primarily a numbers game.

 

[Law2Doc]

I've been searching old threads and see a lot of people claim that once you get to the interview, most schools put interviewees on equal footing.

However, that doesn't really sit well with the data which clearly shows a sharp increase in percent chance of getting accepted with increasing GPA+MCAT, all the way up to >91% for those with the highest stats.

What I mean is, if the interviews were conducted on a level playing field, you would expect that those past a certain threshold stats wise (so that they were able to get interviews) would have roughly equal percent chance of getting accepted on the average...?

first, different schools have different narrow thresholds. For example the range of people who get interviews at the top programs may consist of only those with extremely high numbers to start with. If a program doesn't interview anyone with lower than a 3.6/36, then guess what, the average MCAT at that school will probably be a 38, even if it treats everyone it interviews as on an equal playing field. Nobody is saying scores don't count. We are saying that it opens the door, but whether you get in still depends mostly on the interview day if you get to that point.

At every med school there will be people admitted who beat out people with better numbers than them. That's pretty undeniable. You'll see in med school that many of the most amazing classmates aren't the folks who blew away the MCAT, but in fact had a lot if other more interesting things on their CV and in person. And you will get why the guy with a 4.0/40 and cookie cutter premed activities will have gotten bumped down to the wait list for this kind of applicant.

Schools aren't simply taking folks with the best scores down. There are med schools who wouldn't need to go below a 40 if that were the case.

A lot of premeds hate this notion that you can have top scores and not get in. That's understandable -- you have worked very hard and want to be rewarded. But the competition doesn't end with these tests. And admissions is only partly based on these objective standards. Look at them more as the qualifying round. You still have to beat out some percentage of the competition to get a seat.

 

[PingPongPro]

Isnt it plausible that those with better MCAT/GPA are also the type of people that are more likely to prepare more for the interview and therefore do better as a whole?

 

[Law2Doc]

Not really. A school, for the most part, interviews people who already have the desired stats. The school is looking for the student to show why they would be a good fit for the school...

this. At most med schools, the interview is the most important part of the process ONCE YOU GET TO THAT POINT. The numbers are a big part of what opens that door, but once that door is open, they already know you passed that hurdle and suddenly it's about what makes you a good fit for this program, what do you bring to the table. This is why most schools can afford to say everyone us on equal footing -- because they already culled away everyone not in the ballpark of what they deem acceptance-worthy.

To simplify, If you have a 40 MCAT and X has a 37 and you both interview with the same adcom members, the difference in MCAT won't be considered -- you interview better than X or X will get your seat.

 

[TipToad]

Numbers get the door open. Interview gets you through the door.

 

[circulus vitios]

this. At most med schools, the interview is the most important part of the process ONCE YOU GET TO THAT POINT. The numbers are a big part of what opens that door, but once that door is open, they already know you passed that hurdle and suddenly it's about what makes you a good fit for this program, what do you bring to the table. This is why most schools can afford to say everyone us on equal footing -- because they already culled away everyone not in the ballpark of what they deem acceptance-worthy.

To simplify, If you have a 40 MCAT and X has a 37 and you both interview with the same adcom members, the difference in MCAT won't be considered -- you interview better than X or X will get your seat.

I keep reading this over and over again. What does it mean? Outside of geographical location, curriculum, and focus on research or clinical skills, I don't understand how a student can or cannot be a "fit" for a school. Give me some concrete examples.

 

[NickNaylor]

I keep reading this over and over again. What does it mean? Outside of geographical location, curriculum, and focus on research or clinical skills, I don't understand how a student can or cannot be a "fit" for a school. Give me some concrete examples.

It's hard to describe. At Pritzker, "fit" is a huge deal when evaluating applicants, and yet it's very nebulous. I know that's frustrating as an applicant (I thought it was frustrating), but I can definitely get a sense for whether or not someone will "fit" at Pritzker now that I'm on the other side of the table. It's all about experiences, what they see as important, and what they want to do, and how that fits into what the institution sees as important and what it emphasizes in its educational program.

 

[MiracleforMD]

this. At most med schools, the interview is the most important part of the process ONCE YOU GET TO THAT POINT. The numbers are a big part of what opens that door, but once that door is open, they already know you passed that hurdle and suddenly it's about what makes you a good fit for this program, what do you bring to the table. This is why most schools can afford to say everyone us on equal footing -- because they already culled away everyone not in the ballpark of what they deem acceptance-worthy.

To simplify, If you have a 40 MCAT and X has a 37 and you both interview with the same adcom members, the difference in MCAT won't be considered -- you interview better than X or X will get your seat.

This is a horrible example. You picked two applicants with >99 percentile MCATs. Are you kidding me? If you take your exact scenario and replace 40/37 with 35/32, the MCAT certainly still matters. Quite a lot.

 

[NickNaylor]

This is a horrible example. You picked two applicants with >99 percentile MCATs. Are you kidding me? If you take your exact scenario and replace 40/37 with 35/32, the MCAT certainly still matters. Quite a lot.

And you know this based on...? And I'm assuming you think this is true at all schools (a false assumption; e.g., Mayo directly states that numbers don't matter at all after the interview)?

I'm not necessarily saying it's wrong, but when it comes to a resident that has had experience with admissions vs. a pre-med that may or may not have even applied yet, the resident's input is more likely to be correct.

 

[Law2Doc]

This is a horrible example. You picked two applicants with >99 percentile MCATs. Are you kidding me? If you take your exact scenario and replace 40/37 with 35/32, the MCAT certainly still matters. Quite a lot.

Not really. If a place is interested in folks with 32 and up, it's the same story. You are screened before they open the door. What happens after that door is open is up to you. I promise you that at any given med school there will be folks with a 32 who got in while there are folks with 35+ who didn't. Doesn't mean they still won't get in someplace but they better be on their game at at least one interview.

As an aside, There was a person on SDN a few years back with phenomenal numbers who only applied to the top 20 schools and didn't get in any. There were several hundred people at those schools with significantly lower stats than her who got in. Why? Because having the numbers is not the end of the process.

 

[circulus vitios]

It's hard to describe. At Pritzker, "fit" is a huge deal when evaluating applicants, and yet it's very nebulous. I know that's frustrating as an applicant (I thought it was frustrating), but I can definitely get a sense for whether or not someone will "fit" at Pritzker now that I'm on the other side of the table. It's all about experiences, what they see as important, and what they want to do, and how that fits into what the institution sees as important and what it emphasizes in its educational program.

What kind of fit? Socially, academically?

 

[NickNaylor]

What kind of fit? Socially, academically?

Mostly the latter, but also the former to some extent (at least as evaluated by current students). But that's a hard thing to evaluate since each person is so different.

 

[Law2Doc]

What kind of fit? Socially, academically?

As he said it's nebulous -- eye of the beholder kind of thing. An adcom member has to come out if an interview with a warm fuzzy feeling about admitting you, feeling like you will be an asset to the student body in some way, be it due to diverse interests or charismatic leadership, or just something really appealing about your past or a certain wow factor. It's sort of like the Supreme Court justices and pornography, they "know it when they see it".

 

[LizzyM]

I keep reading this over and over again. What does it mean? Outside of geographical location, curriculum, and focus on research or clinical skills, I don't understand how a student can or cannot be a "fit" for a school. Give me some concrete examples.

If a school uses a lot of small group, peer-lead teaching, an applicant who is too shy to communicate well to a group would not be a good fit. Ditto an applicant who is inarticulate (i.e. can't answer the question, "teach me to do something using only your words, no hand gestures").

A school that has a mission of preparing primary care providers for the state might shy away from someone whose answer to every question is to talk about his lab, his research and how much he loves research. On the flip side, a school with a mandatory thesis might shy away from someone who straight out asks if students are able to "get out" of that requirement by doing a community service project.

There might be some cases (very rare) where someone from a very different culture (US born & raised but from a different region) might seem to be so clueless and naive (or biased) that they would not seem to be a good fit to provide patient care at the schools' affiliated hospitals (e.g. asking questions about ethnic & religious minorities that sound prejudiced).

 

[MiracleforMD]

And you know this based on...? And I'm assuming you think this is true at all schools (a false assumption; e.g., Mayo directly states that numbers don't matter at all after the interview)?

I'm not necessarily saying it's wrong, but when it comes to a resident that has had experience with admissions vs. a pre-med that may or may not have even applied yet, the resident's input is more likely to be correct.

Have applied, applying again this year. While it has not helped me in any way, shape, or form, I have met and have family who are personal friends with several deans and admissin committee members, former and present, and we have discussed this. I agree that making a blanket statement about what all schools do is totally ridiculous. We are in agreement there. But, Mayo is kind of a different beast. They are known for their exclusivity. With many of the mid and lower tier schools, the MCAT is definitely still a factor. I am not saying the 35 is automatically getting in over the 32, but it is still a considerable variable, as is the interview. All I way saying both still hold a lot of weight, even past interview.

Not really. If a place is interested in folks with 32 and up, it's the same story. You are screened before they open the door. What happens after that door is open is up to you. I promise you that at any given med school there will be folks with a 32 who got in while there are folks with 35+ who didn't. Doesn't mean they still won't get in someplace but they better be on their game at at least one interview.

As an aside, There was a person on SDN a few years back with phenomenal numbers who only applied to the top 20 schools and didn't get in any. There were several hundred people at those schools with significantly lower stats than her who got in. Why? Because having the numbers is not the end of the process.

I agree with the bolded. But that statement =/= what was said earlier about the equal footing. The MCAT can still hold considerable weight and the above can still be true. And while I agree with your 2nd paragraph, that again =/= what was said earlier about equal footing. I am in no way saying that the interview does not matter or that MCAT is even the majority. I am arguing that MCAT, GPA, ECs, LOR, and interview ALL still matter. How much? Depends on the school, the applicant, the single admissions committee member, or a multitude of other factors. And if you factor in waitlists, the MCAT is still extremely important about who gets selected of of those, as is the interview.

 

[NickNaylor]

Have applied, applying again this year. While it has not helped me in any way, shape, or form, I have met and have family who are personal friends with several deans and admissin committee members, former and present, and we have discussed this. I agree that making a blanket statement about what all schools do is totally ridiculous. We are in agreement there. But, Mayo is kind of a different beast. They are known for their exclusivity. With many of the mid and lower tier schools, the MCAT is definitely still a factor. I am not saying the 35 is automatically getting in over the 32, but it is still a considerable variable, as is the interview. All I way saying both still hold a lot of weight, even past interview.

My point though is that the last statement you make isn't true as it is. You have to qualify your statements. At some schools, yes, that might be true, but I know of many where that's absolutely not true. Every school has a different philosophy and a different approach to admissions. It's not easy to make generalizations that are accurate in medical admissions, especially when it comes to declaring "what's important."

 

[MiracleforMD]

My point though is that the last statement you make isn't true as it is. You have to qualify your statements. At some schools, yes, that might be true, but I know of many where that's absolutely not true. Every school has a different philosophy and a different approach to admissions. It's not easy to make generalizations that are accurate in medical admissions, especially when it comes to declaring "what's important."

Fair. I was just being a lazy typist. I am sure that many schools do state (whether they are being truthful or not) that the MCAT is disregarded after the interview. It is absurd to say that all schools are like this though.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I've been searching old threads and see a lot of people claim that once you get to the interview, most schools put interviewees on equal footing.

this just isn't true

 

[MiracleforMD]

this just isn't true

Careful, bro. Law2Doc doesn't agree.

 

[kpcrew]

Let's have some respect for posters that have experience from both sides of the admissions process. I've heard a lot that numbers are important, but only to a certain point. Schools want to make sure that you can handle the material. In that case, someone with a 35 and someone with a 32 probably both qualify. Numbers are important for getting an interview and do play a role in your application afterwards. So schools have already judged that all of those with interview invitations should be capable of graduating successfully from their medical school. Since everyone can succeed academically, the next most important factor is how good of a fit you are for medicine and if they can see you as a future doctor. There are plenty of people with high numbers that don't have the temperament, the passion, or the desire to be a doctor, although they may have done all the right things in college and said all the right things in their essays.

 

[jjesque]

I think it depends on the school and how each school handles admissions decisions. At some schools I know that the interviewer writes only a short note about the applicant that is then included in the file for committee review. At other schools, the interviewer is your advocate on the committee and presents your case. Not difficult to see that in the latter case, the interview (and the impression you made on your interviewer) could potentially have a much larger influence.

 

[tn4596]

Let's have some respect for posters that have experience from both sides of the admissions process. I've heard a lot that numbers are important, but only to a certain point. Schools want to make sure that you can handle the material. In that case, someone with a 35 and someone with a 32 probably both qualify. Numbers are important for getting an interview and do play a role in your application afterwards. So schools have already judged that all of those with interview invitations should be capable of graduating successfully from their medical school. Since everyone can succeed academically, the next most important factor is how good of a fit you are for medicine and if they can see you as a future doctor. There are plenty of people with high numbers that don't have the temperament, the passion, or the desire to be a doctor, although they may have done all the right things in college and said all the right things in their essays.

Disclaimer: this is purely my speculation

I have this idea that low-mid tier schools would take the applicant with higher stats over lower stat regardless of fit in order to say: Our matriculants have an average of XX MCAT and XX GPA. Med schools wouldnt want those number to fall too low, would they. Also, schools often boast their board exams pass rate/avg and the only objective indicator of academic successes is GPA/MCAT.

 

[MiracleforMD]

Let's have some respect for posters that have experience from both sides of the admissions process. I've heard a lot that numbers are important, but only to a certain point. Schools want to make sure that you can handle the material. In that case, someone with a 35 and someone with a 32 probably both qualify. Numbers are important for getting an interview and do play a role in your application afterwards. So schools have already judged that all of those with interview invitations should be capable of graduating successfully from their medical school. Since everyone can succeed academically, the next most important factor is how good of a fit you are for medicine and if they can see you as a future doctor. There are plenty of people with high numbers that don't have the temperament, the passion, or the desire to be a doctor, although they may have done all the right things in college and said all the right things in their essays.

For sure. Is anyone disputing this?

 

[Law2Doc]

this just isn't true

At a lot if schools, perhaps the vast majority, it actually is, whether they spell it out or not. The interview is HUGE if you get that far. To the point that nothing else matters at most places if you get that far. Sure, there are some places that explicitly say everyone is equal and some places that dont say it, but then make the interview worth the lion's share of the "points" you get toward admissions, meaning that it's still the only game in town. The one exception to this is state schools who interview everyone instate as a courtesy - in such case you won't have been screened yet. But for pretty much the majority of the rest you'd better bring your A game to the interview or the guy with a few less points on the MCAT us going to smoke you. Happens all the time. You'll meet many of these nonnumeric superstars in med school.

But believe what you want. If you want to relax because you think you've scored high enough, go for it.

 

[Law2Doc]

Disclaimer: this is purely my speculation

I have this idea that low-mid tier schools would take the applicant with higher stats over lower stat regardless of fit in order to say: Our matriculants have an average of XX MCAT and XX GPA. Med schools wouldnt want those number to fall too low, would they. Also, schools often boast their board exams pass rate/avg and the only objective indicator of academic successes is GPA/MCAT.

They may scoop up the middle ground folks with relatively high numbers that were good interviewees but not quite impressive enough in their interviews to wow the top schools. But to suggest that they would get excited about a one dimensional applicant with amazing numbers on paper is not accurate in my experience. They would talk to them, but the interview would still have to go well.

 

[Law2Doc]

Have applied, applying again this year...

While i respect your opinion, you may be a bit too vested in this topic to look at it objectively, and haven't really seen it from the successful applicant side.

 

[MiracleforMD]

While i respect your opinion, you may be a bit too vested in this topic to look at it objectively, and haven't really seen it from the successful applicant side.

I could see where you get that idea, but trust me man haha. I WISH it was like you are saying it is. My MCAT/GPA are average at best and I am a pretty normal dude who interviews fairly well. It could be the pessimist in me subconsciously hoping I'm wrong.

 

[Law2Doc]

I could see where you get that idea, but trust me man haha. I WISH it was like you are saying it is. My MCAT/GPA are average at best and I am a pretty normal dude who interviews fairly well. It could be the pessimist in me subconsciously hoping I'm wrong.

My experience from being on both sides of the desk is that few people have accurate insight as to whether they interview fairly well. The only folks who know they interview well are the ones who get acceptances.

 

[tn4596]

My experience from being on both sides of the desk is that few people have accurate insight as to whether they interview fairly well. The only folks who know they interview well are the ones who get acceptances.

This statement instantly makes me become 10x more neurotic.

 

[mirimonster]

My experience from being on both sides of the desk is that few people have accurate insight as to whether they interview fairly well. The only folks who know they interview well are the ones who get acceptances.

 

[Law2Doc]

This statement instantly makes me become 10x more neurotic.

Interviewing is a learnable skill. You get better by practicing in front of people willing to offer criticism, ideally on tape so you can go back and see what they see. And be prepared. Know what you are going to talk about if they bring up certain expected topics, and have good questions to ask if they allow you to take control of the interview. Being neurotic in and of itself isn't helpful. But if it forces you to prepare and practice it can be a good survival tool.

 

[TheShaker]

So what I'm getting from this thread is that how "special" and fitting an applicant is will determine his success after he has passed the numbers test. Given this, how would the average cookie cutter applicant do in admissions? I find it hard to imagine an entire class being filled with those shining stars that might catch the eye of an adcom. Shouldn't a good amount at least represent the typical applicant?

 

[BABSstudent]

One thing that I haven't seen anyone address here is the open and closed application interviews. At some schools the people interviewing you will never have seen your application. In a situation like this, I would predict there would not be a correlation between scores and acceptance.

At other schools, they have open application interviews where the interviewers have your file (scores included). I would predict that interviewers would be biased in selecting applicants because of scores and a higher score might get in over a lower score even if the interview went the same.

But at the same time, fit should be taken into consideration.

 

[UrshumMurshum]

Well another thing to consider is that schools want to have high stats to publish for the GPA/MCAT averages.

I think of the interview as more a bar you have to clear and your stats will take you the rest of the way.

For some with exceptional interview skills, they'll be able to sell themselves and surpass someone with higher stats than them.

For the majority of people, they have more or less the same interview skills and will be distinguished by other factors.

 

[MiracleforMD]

My experience from being on both sides of the desk is that few people have accurate insight as to whether they interview fairly well. The only folks who know they interview well are the ones who get acceptances.

Well anyways, it is kind of irrelevant. I was not using my own experiences as a source because it is too small of a sample size. As I'm sure your experiences are.

 

[tn4596]

Well anyways, it is kind of irrelevant. I was not using my own experiences as a source because it is too small of a sample size. As I'm sure your experiences are.

I think he just wants to make a point that just because your stat is high, that doesnt guarantee anything. and everyone should do their best to interviews

 

[saveourpens]

From my experience, everyone is NOT equal at interviews...no matter how much they may say they are just trying to measure everyone's "compassion".

 

[Slack3r]

this just isn't true

While I'm sure it's not true everywhere, it's certainly true at my school. We get >10,000 applications for <1,000 interview spots, so getting an interview is a pretty big deal. They explicitly state that once you receive an interview, it's entirely about determining "fit". It"s hard to spell out, and if you had asked me a few years ago what "fit" meant in regards to med school, I'd have been clueless. But looking around, I notice that my school is filled with pretty like-minded people, and the 'fit' makes a lot more sense.

 

[MiracleforMD]

I think he just wants to make a point that just because your stat is high, that doesnt guarantee anything. and everyone should do their best to interviews

Read the thread. That is not what he is saying. But I taking my hat out of this ring. Clearly there are plenty on both sides, so I doubt resolution will be reached.

 

[LizzyM]

My school doesn't really use numbers in this way but let me give you an example that roughly approximates what happens at one school.

Imagine a huge staircase with numbered stairs. On interview day, the applicants are on the stair that corresponds to their LizzyM score. An applicant that is very impressive on interview might be moved up one stair or more. Most applicants are going to remain where they are.. not going up or down. Some student who do or say something absolutely terrible might be sent down 10 steps, or more. In some cases, an applicant that didn't impress the interviewers but wasn't horrible might go down a step or three.

Now where is everyone? Starting at the top of the staircase, we admit students until we max out the number we can safely admit (without becoming oversubscribed). Obviously, scores and grades still matter but those who are great on interview can jump ahead and those who bomb will be demoted to the bottom of the waitlist or outright rejected.

 

[MiracleforMD]

My school doesn't really use numbers in this way but let me give you an example that roughly approximates what happens at one school.

Imagine a huge staircase with numbered stairs. On interview day, the applicants are on the stair that corresponds to their LizzyM score. An applicant that is very impressive on interview might be moved up one stair or more. Most applicants are going to remain where they are.. not going up or down. Some student who do or say something absolutely terrible might be sent down 10 steps, or more. In some cases, an applicant that didn't impress the interviewers but wasn't horrible might go down a step or three.

Now where is everyone? Starting at the top of the staircase, we admit students until we max out the number we can safely admit (without becoming oversubscribed). Obviously, scores and grades still matter but those who are great on interview can jump ahead and those who bomb will be demoted to the bottom of the waitlist or outright rejected.

I believe this is the best representation of the system. Thanks Lizzy.

 

[Revolver1045]

This may help. Stats seem to get you the interview, but it also seems that by far the interview recommendation and your letters of rec will help you get an acceptance post interview.

https://www.aamc.org/download/261106/data/aibvol11_no6.pdf

 

[UrshumMurshum]

My school doesn't really use numbers in this way but let me give you an example that roughly approximates what happens at one school.

Imagine a huge staircase with numbered stairs. On interview day, the applicants are on the stair that corresponds to their LizzyM score. An applicant that is very impressive on interview might be moved up one stair or more. Most applicants are going to remain where they are.. not going up or down. Some student who do or say something absolutely terrible might be sent down 10 steps, or more. In some cases, an applicant that didn't impress the interviewers but wasn't horrible might go down a step or three.

Now where is everyone? Starting at the top of the staircase, we admit students until we max out the number we can safely admit (without becoming oversubscribed). Obviously, scores and grades still matter but those who are great on interview can jump ahead and those who bomb will be demoted to the bottom of the waitlist or outright rejected.

This is how I see most schools doing things, and I believe best explains why there is such a strong correlation to GPA+MCAT and acceptance.

 

[alerk323]

My school doesn't really use numbers in this way but let me give you an example that roughly approximates what happens at one school.

Imagine a huge staircase with numbered stairs. On interview day, the applicants are on the stair that corresponds to their LizzyM score. An applicant that is very impressive on interview might be moved up one stair or more. Most applicants are going to remain where they are.. not going up or down. Some student who do or say something absolutely terrible might be sent down 10 steps, or more. In some cases, an applicant that didn't impress the interviewers but wasn't horrible might go down a step or three.

Now where is everyone? Starting at the top of the staircase, we admit students until we max out the number we can safely admit (without becoming oversubscribed). Obviously, scores and grades still matter but those who are great on interview can jump ahead and those who bomb will be demoted to the bottom of the waitlist or outright rejected.

And there we have it, looks like schools DO use gpa/mcat quite heavily after interview, even suggesting the interview is even less important compared to numbers. I think this settles the matter.

 

[alerk323]

This may help. Stats seem to get you the interview, but it also seems that by far the interview recommendation and your letters of rec will help you get an acceptance post interview.

https://www.aamc.org/download/261106/data/aibvol11_no6.pdf

By far? The data the end of this article suggests that interview recommendation is more important than gpa/mcat, but not by that huge a gap. (4.5 compared to 3.8 on 5 point rating scale). Also of note is that the data on gpa/mcat importance to getting an acceptance post interview is based off of academic data while the 4.5 number is based on a vague "combination of things". Also standard deviations were from 0.9 to 1.7 depending on the statistic, suggesting that the 4.5 and 3.8 numbers aren't even that different in the first place.

Also, I like how "completion of pre-med requirements" was ranked a 3 on how important it was for invitation to interview. Is this not the MOST important, as it's something you HAVE to do??? (although maybe they're talking about people who are planning on finishing requirements? which then suggests that it hurts you quite a bit not to have your requirements done by the time you apply)