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

[plumazul]

---

Members don't see this ad.

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 consistent with the results of a survey published by the AAMC in "Analysis in Brief".

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

 

[RogueUnicorn]

To the point that nothing else matters at most places if you get that far.

Again I have to disagree. While I can't generalize with strong confidence, I'm very familiar with the admissions process at 3 med schools and only one of these puts an overwhelming emphasis on the interviews in the final scores. Anecdotal, yes, but that's what I have to work with.

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 is 100000000% accurate

 

[plumazul]

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.

Are you suggesting that the medical school interview is somehow intrinsically different than the generic interview? Why would you think med school applicants would lack this knowledge? Certainly we have all had the mock interviews (with associated feedback) and many of us have also already experienced a handful of high stakes interviews (jobs, lab positions, summer programs, scholarships, etc.) and were "accepted".

 

[kpcrew]

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)

No because it's what you have to do before you matriculate. You can apply and be interviewed without having them completed.

Are you suggesting that the medical school interview is somehow intrinsically different than the generic interview? Why would you think med school applicants would lack this knowledge? Certainly we have all had the mock interviews (with associated feedback) and many of us have also already experienced a handful of high stakes interviews (jobs, lab positions, summer programs, scholarships, etc.) and were "accepted".

Of course it's different because medical school is the bottleneck for becoming a doctor. Once you're in, there are many resources that are available to make sure you succeed. It's getting in that's the difficult step. Having experience with interviews doesn't mean that you will be able to make an accurate assessment of yourself as an interviewee. It's an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in which unskilled individuals overrate their competence while those with true ability tend to overestimate it. You have no experience interviewing people. Therefore you don't have a good way to assess the interviewing skills, whether you are judging yourself or others.

 

[NickNaylor]

Are you suggesting that the medical school interview is somehow intrinsically different than the generic interview? Why would you think med school applicants would lack this knowledge? Certainly we have all had the mock interviews (with associated feedback) and many of us have also already experienced a handful of high stakes interviews (jobs, lab positions, summer programs, scholarships, etc.) and were "accepted".

As kp alludes to, unless you have spent time interviewing people in a similar situation (highly unlikely for most traditional pre-meds), you only know what a "successful" interview is from the perspective of an interviewee. For many applicants, a "successful" interview consists of 1) not making any blatant flubs, 2) answering the questions directly, and 3) being "smooth," i.e., no awkward pauses, breaks, arguments, etc. In reality, it's all but impossible to tell whether or not you succeeded in an interview. I don't think I had what I would consider to be a poor interview when I applied, yet I received several waitlists and one rejection post-interview. A competent interviewer will make the interviewee feel comfortable regardless of how well he/she is doing. I've done several interviewers where the interviewee might rightly (from their perspective) think they performed well when in reality I slam them in my evaluation. You also likely have no idea what kinds of information I (or anyone) am looking for when I ask you a particular question. Of course you're going to give the answer you THINK is best, but in many cases what you think is best and what I'm looking for are different. Even with the same question different schools and interviewers within the same schools will look for different answers.

The tl;dr version is as an applicant 1) you don't know what the interviewer is looking for and 2) your "success" is from your own perspective. Without #1, #2 is essentially pure speculation.

 

[dmf2682]

Is there any danger in being too smooth? I've heard incidentally that adcoms don't like rehearsed answers, but rather ones that are more immediate, genuine.

 

[alerk323]

As kp alludes to, unless you have spent time interviewing people in a similar situation (highly unlikely for most traditional pre-meds), you only know what a "successful" interview is from the perspective of an interviewee. For many applicants, a "successful" interview consists of 1) not making any blatant flubs, 2) answering the questions directly, and 3) being "smooth," i.e., no awkward pauses, breaks, arguments, etc. In reality, it's all but impossible to tell whether or not you succeeded in an interview. I don't think I had what I would consider to be a poor interview when I applied, yet I received several waitlists and one rejection post-interview. A competent interviewer will make the interviewee feel comfortable regardless of how well he/she is doing. I've done several interviewers where the interviewee might rightly (from their perspective) think they performed well when in reality I slam them in my evaluation. You also likely have no idea what kinds of information I (or anyone) am looking for when I ask you a particular question. Of course you're going to give the answer you THINK is best, but in many cases what you think is best and what I'm looking for are different. Even with the same question different schools and interviewers within the same schools will look for different answers.

The tl;dr version is as an applicant 1) you don't know what the interviewer is looking for and 2) your "success" is from your own perspective. Without #1, #2 is essentially pure speculation.

May I ask what reasons you have slammed interviewes in evaluations who probably thought they did fine (meaning, their mistakes probably weren't obvoius).

I know for a fact that the reason I didn't get into one of my schools was because of the interview, (despite thinking it went really well + we talked for waay longer than was scheduled). But any input would be appreciated.

 

[alerk323]

No because it's what you have to do before you matriculate. You can apply and be interviewed without having them completed.

.

This would then suggest that it hurts your application to have a couple courses you havn't taken yet, I guess this might be obvious to others but I have never considered it. I guess it makes sense now that I"m thinking about it

 

[NickNaylor]

Is there any danger in being too smooth? I've heard incidentally that adcoms don't like rehearsed answers, but rather ones that are more immediate, genuine.

I get irritated when it's patently obvious that someone is being extremely fake (e.g., overly enthusiastic, super pumped about everything, etc.). I'm not sure if that's limited to just me, but it leaves a bad impression in mind.

 

[NickNaylor]

May I ask what reasons you have slammed interviewes in evaluations who probably thought they did fine (meaning, their mistakes probably weren't obvoius).

I know for a fact that the reason I didn't get into one of my schools was because of the interview, (despite thinking it went really well + we talked for waay longer than was scheduled). But any input would be appreciated.

Well, the key word in my post there was how the INTERVIEWEE felt about the interview (which in many cases is very different compared to how I felt about the interview). As I said, what constitutes a "successful" interview from the perspective of the applicant doesn't always match the perspective of the interviewer. Even though the applicant may have provided answers that they thought were appropriate, illustrative, good, etc., from my perspective they may not have. Of course I'm not going to stop the interview and say, "that was a poor answer" - I'm going to go along with it. If I do my job well, the applicant shouldn't think anything of it and won't know if it was good or bad.

We also use a form that asks us to evaluate an applicant on a few different areas. The applicant has no idea what these areas are, so that's why I say it's impossible for them to know what I'm looking for when I ask a question. Of course I try and frame the question well enough so that I give the applicant the best chance possible to provide an answer that I'm looking for, but despite that many people fail to provide a "good" (from my perspective) answer. But I don't tell the applicant, "ok, this question is meant to give me an idea about _____, so keep that in mind when you give me your answer."

Hope that helps.

 

[alerk323]

Well, the key word in my post there was how the INTERVIEWEE felt about the interview (which in many cases is very different compared to how I felt about the interview). As I said, what constitutes a "successful" interview from the perspective of the applicant doesn't always match the perspective of the interviewer. Even though the applicant may have provided answers that they thought were appropriate, illustrative, good, etc., from my perspective they may not have. Of course I'm not going to stop the interview and say, "that was a poor answer" - I'm going to go along with it. If I do my job well, the applicant shouldn't think anything of it and won't know if it was good or bad.

We also use a form that asks us to evaluate an applicant on a few different areas. The applicant has no idea what these areas are, so that's why I say it's impossible for them to know what I'm looking for when I ask a question. Of course I try and frame the question well enough so that I give the applicant the best chance possible to provide an answer that I'm looking for, but despite that many people fail to provide a "good" (from my perspective) answer. But I don't tell the applicant, "ok, this question is meant to give me an idea about _____, so keep that in mind when you give me your answer."

Hope that helps.

Right right I understand that my perceptions may have (probably were) off (although there were two interviewers so it could have been the other guy). I was looking for more specifics if possible. LIke questionable motivations for medicine? I mean, do you feign interest when really they answered the question poorly? How do you make them feel like it was a good interview when it isn't?

 

[NickNaylor]

Right right I understand that my perceptions may have (probably were) off (although there were two interviewers so it could have been the other guy). I was looking for more specifics if possible. LIke questionable motivations for medicine? I mean, do you feign interest when really they answered the question poorly? How do you make them feel like it was a good interview when it isn't?

Well, I stay positive and enthusiastic when I'm doing an interview. I try and make them more like discussions: I'll ask a question, the applicant will provide an answer, and depending on what they say I might ask another question or talk to them about what they said. I wouldn't say I feign interest, but more that I try and focus on the positives of their answer without touching the negatives.

As I said, it's very easy to feign a good interview: applicants are typically looking at very superficial markers of a "good" interview (as I said above, a "smooth" interview, clear, concise answers that are on topic, etc.). Really as long as you make the person you're speaking with feel comfortable and don't be a douchebag, he/she probably won't think that it went poorly. Maybe it was mediocre or maybe it was good (from their perspective), but as long as it wasn't a bad experience they likely won't feel bad about it.

I will also say that interviews very much follow a bell curve: most are just okay, a small minority are very good, and a small minority are painfully bad. I did ~25 interviews last year, and I'd say maybe 18-20 were decent, 2-3 were exceptional, and the rest were on the bad side.

 

[UrshumMurshum]

Well, I stay positive and enthusiastic when I'm doing an interview. I try and make them more like discussions: I'll ask a question, the applicant will provide an answer, and depending on what they say I might ask another question or talk to them about what they said. I wouldn't say I feign interest, but more that I try and focus on the positives of their answer without touching the negatives.

As I said, it's very easy to feign a good interview: applicants are typically looking at very superficial markers of a "good" interview (as I said above, a "smooth" interview, clear, concise answers that are on topic, etc.). Really as long as you make the person you're speaking with feel comfortable and don't be a douchebag, he/she probably won't think that it went poorly. Maybe it was mediocre or maybe it was good (from their perspective), but as long as it wasn't a bad experience they likely won't feel bad about it.

I will also say that interviews very much follow a bell curve: most are just okay, a small minority are very good, and a small minority are painfully bad. I did ~25 interviews last year, and I'd say maybe 18-20 were decent, 2-3 were exceptional, and the rest were on the bad side.

This is what I was expecting and probably holds true to the adcom interviews.

Question: For the ones that were bad, what was the common characteristic that gave you that impression.

 

[NickNaylor]

This is what I was expecting and probably holds true to the adcom interviews.

Question: For the ones that were bad, what was the common characteristic that gave you that impression.

Socially awkward, didn't answer the questions I asked or provided poor answers (i.e., gave off the impression that they were clearly sheltered and/or had not really reflected on their experiences or why they want to go into medicine), arrogant, etc. - really the things everyone says.

 

[plumazul]

Of course it's different because medical school is the bottleneck for becoming a doctor. Once you're in, there are many resources that are available to make sure you succeed. It's getting in that's the difficult step.

😕Not sure what you mean. The interview serves the same purpose in almost all context.

Having experience with interviews doesn't mean that you will be able to make an accurate assessment of yourself as an interviewee. It's an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in which unskilled individuals overrate their competence while those with true ability tend to overestimate it. You have no experience interviewing people. Therefore you don't have a good way to assess the interviewing skills, whether you are judging yourself or others.

😕 The assessment is a function of your outcomes and feedback. So you disagree with Law2Doc when he said:

The only folks who know they interview well are the ones who get acceptances.

?

As kp alludes to, unless you have spent time interviewing people in a similar situation (highly unlikely for most traditional pre-meds), you only know what a "successful" interview is from the perspective of an interviewee. For many applicants, a "successful" interview consists of 1) not making any blatant flubs, 2) answering the questions directly, and 3) being "smooth," i.e., no awkward pauses, breaks, arguments, etc. In reality, it's all but impossible to tell whether or not you succeeded in an interview.

😕 A successful interview is one that got you the job, research position, summer program seat, the full ride scholarship, etc. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I don't think I had what I would consider to be a poor interview when I applied, yet I received several waitlists and one rejection post-interview. A competent interviewer will make the interviewee feel comfortable regardless of how well he/she is doing. I've done several interviewers where the interviewee might rightly (from their perspective) think they performed well when in reality I slam them in my evaluation. You also likely have no idea what kinds of information I (or anyone) am looking for when I ask you a particular question. Of course you're going to give the answer you THINK is best, but in many cases what you think is best and what I'm looking for are different. Even with the same question different schools and interviewers within the same schools will look for different answers.

The tl;dr version is as an applicant 1) you don't know what the interviewer is looking for and 2) your "success" is from your own perspective. Without #1, #2 is essentially pure speculation.

1) Doesn't matter. There are no right and wrong answers in this context. I have been told many times by people who matter (admins, directors, etc.) to just be yourself and this is what I have always done, with great success. 😉
2) To repeat, success is judged by results.

 

[NickNaylor]

😕 A successful interview is one that got you the job, research position, summer program seat, the full ride scholarship, etc. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

1) Doesn't matter. There are no right and wrong answers in this context. I have been told many times by people who matter (admins, directors, etc.) to just be yourself and this is what I have always done, with great success. 😉
2) To repeat, success is judged by results.

Based on your flippant rejection of what I wrote - which is based on both what I would consider to be a highly successful application cycle as well as doing many, many interviews for my medical school - I'm going to assume you have some kind of experience doing interviews for a medical school. Either that or you failed to understand what I wrote, which was that the idea of a successful interview from the perspective of an applicant rarely matches that of the interviewer. This often explains why people don't understand getting rejected/waitlisted after a "good" interview.

 

[plumazul]

Based on your flippant rejection of what I wrote - which is based on both what I would consider to be a highly successful application cycle as well as doing many, many interviews for my medical school - I'm going to assume you have some kind of experience doing interviews for a medical school. Either that or you failed to understand what I wrote, which was that the idea of a successful interview from the perspective of an applicant rarely matches that of the interviewer. This often explains why people don't understand getting rejected/waitlisted after a "good" interview.

Did I hurt your feelings? I wasn't trying to. Perhaps the confusion is because you didn't read my(or Law2Doc's) original post?

 

[CholeCystems]

So A lot of these posts have provided good information (thank you) about GPA, MCAT and interviews but where do the EC's and LOR's come in? Can those help you move up and down the "LizzyM stairs"? Or are they mostly just to make sure this person is interested in medicine and has experiences to prove that and that they generally had a positive relationship with those they worked with (LOR's) after they have a good interview with decent GPA/MCAT.

 

[sinuous sausage]

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.

basically med schools think Steven Hawking would be a crap doctor

 

[sinuous sausage]

Well, I stay positive and enthusiastic when I'm doing an interview. I try and make them more like discussions: I'll ask a question, the applicant will provide an answer, and depending on what they say I might ask another question or talk to them about what they said. I wouldn't say I feign interest, but more that I try and focus on the positives of their answer without touching the negatives.

As I said, it's very easy to feign a good interview: applicants are typically looking at very superficial markers of a "good" interview (as I said above, a "smooth" interview, clear, concise answers that are on topic, etc.). Really as long as you make the person you're speaking with feel comfortable and don't be a douchebag, he/she probably won't think that it went poorly. Maybe it was mediocre or maybe it was good (from their perspective), but as long as it wasn't a bad experience they likely won't feel bad about it.

I will also say that interviews very much follow a bell curve: most are just okay, a small minority are very good, and a small minority are painfully bad. I did ~25 interviews last year, and I'd say maybe 18-20 were decent, 2-3 were exceptional, and the rest were on the bad side.

pray tell, if you can, what made the exceptional ones "exceptional."

 

[NickNaylor]

Did I hurt your feelings? I wasn't trying to. Perhaps the confusion is because you didn't read my(or Law2Doc's) original post?

Hardly. I was primarily addressing your question that asked why applicants might not have the knowledge necessary to succeed in an interview. The answer is because they don't necessarily know what an interviewer is SPECIFICALLY looking for in an interview for medical school. Every interviewer and school is looking for something different. Interviewing for a job is not the same as interviewing for medical school. If you've interviewed for medical school before, you would understand this. Yes, some principles are similar, but they are pretty different in terms of approach and how you can maximize your chances at success.

 

[Goblue89]

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.

How do you know this? Do you ask people how they think they did at the end/after an interview?

 

[NickNaylor]

pray tell, if you can, what made the exceptional ones "exceptional."

They were able to tie in their experiences flawlessly when responding to my questions. They were also able to clearly demonstrate why attending Pritzker would be advantageous to their training, especially as opposed to any other school. Whether or not they did this intentionally through careful preparation or accidentally as a result of how they described their experiences, I don't know. In the end, though, I suppose it really doesn't matter. They were also well-spoken, well-mannered, and generally pleasant to talk to.

 

[NickNaylor]

How do you know this? Do you ask people how they think they did at the end/after an interview?

Just look at the endless numbers of people that say, "I don't know why I got rejected/waitlisted - I interviewed so well!" after receiving an unfavorable decision. Clearly they didn't do as well as they thought.

 

[plumazul]

For reference, here is the post I responded to

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.

While I totally agreed with the second statement, it was unclear(in the first statement) if Law2Doc was speaking to interviews in general or specifically the MS interview. (and if it was the latter, why are MS interviews different)

Hardly. I was primarily addressing your question that asked why applicants might not have the knowledge necessary to succeed in an interview. The answer is because they don't necessarily know what an interviewer is SPECIFICALLY looking for in an interview for medical school.

Couldn't this be the case for any interview?

Every interviewer and school is looking for something different. Interviewing for a job is not the same as interviewing for medical school. If you've interviewed for medical school before, you would understand this. Yes, some principles are similar, but they are pretty different in terms of approach and how you can maximize your chances at success.

How are they different?

 

[muhali3]

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.

What would be an appropriate analogy for your school then?

 

[Goblue89]

Just look at the endless numbers of people that say, "I don't know why I got rejected/waitlisted - I interviewed so well!" after receiving an unfavorable decision. Clearly they didn't do as well as they thought.

You cant use a debated conclusion in an argument (i.e. that numbers are irrelevant after the interview and performance is what matters) to support a premise made.

 

[MiracleforMD]

You cant use a debated conclusion in an argument (i.e. that numbers are irrelevant after the interview and performance is what matters) to support a premise made.

Glad someone else noticed this.

 

[ShenanigansMD]

I wonder if adcoms gives easier interviews to people with higher stats, you know to attract them. And for the lower stat people, they tend to be harder on them to see if they are worthy...

But that's just an applicants speculation...

 

[SLC]

Not to revert to an earlier topic, but I have an n=2 that I can relate to the discussion here.

1. When I was a pre-med, I volunteered at this incredible free clinic. I was doing a health promotion degree and the clinic gave me a lot of projects related to that field. It was a huge goldmine for med-application experiences, and just a neat place to be.

Anyway, one of the first projects dealt with the clinic's approach to Tuberculosis screening and treatment. Part of the project required me to do an analysis on the clinic's then current algorithm for screening and, if necessary, treatment. I decided to enlist the assistance and guidance of the state's TB program.

Turns out that one of the folks I got to meet with was a local pulmonologist, who also happened to be the dean of admissions for my state's medical school (MD) at the time. When he found out that I was pre-med, he asked if I planned on applying to his school. I told him I wasn't sure if I had a competitive application based on grades at that point. To which he replied "I only need a 3.0, after that it's all about stuff like this that you're doing here" which to me meant that 3.0 was the cutoff GPA, and after that they looked at EC's and research etc. I also have to assume based on the school's website that they put a lot of stock in how you describe your experiences at the interview.

I didn't end up applying because I found another school that I felt was a much stronger fit for my goals, which leads me to my #2 story.

2. A few months ago, I was in physical exam class with one of my professors who is closely involved with the admissions process. I decided to ask him his impression of what the school values in an applicant. His response was "fit mostly", he said that they obviously have to feel that an applicant can succeed academically, but that the stats required for that are not as high as most imagine. But once the committee feels that an applicant has a low chance of failing out, it's almost 100% based on the school's mission and how a student's experiences and stated ambitions line up with what the school is trying to accomplish.

Looking back on it now, I can see how my previous experiences made me an ideal candidate for this school, just like how I thought this school was ideal for me.

 

[NickNaylor]

You cant use a debated conclusion in an argument (i.e. that numbers are irrelevant after the interview and performance is what matters) to support a premise made.

I am not making an argument based on logic. If you don't want to accept what I say, that's your loss - I don't care. I don't get anything from blowing smoke up your ass, so I'm not sure why you would be skeptical considering this is based on pretty significant experience. Also, I said absolutely nothing about numbers in the post you quoted. My point was that people's perception of their interviewing skills/performance are poorly correlated with how they did in the eyes of those interviewing them.

 

[NickNaylor]

Couldn't this be the case for any interview?

How are they different?

This is getting labored and I'm tired of trying to explain this pretty unimportant point. You'll see the differences when you interview. As I said, there are some fundamental similarities that are shared (i.e., importance of being well-spoken, not being awkward, being concise with your answers, etc.), however if you approach a medical school interview with the aggressiveness typically associated with a job interview and a more results-oriented vs. process-oriented (if that makes sense) perspective, you likely won't do very well.

 

[dmf2682]

Some good stuff in this thread, I've added selected tidbits to my premed log. Nick if I end up with a Chicago interview next year I'll have to buy you a beer.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Everyone's not equal at interview, plus those students that get invited to interviews tend to have good stats in the first place. Adcoms aren't inviting too many students with 25 MCAT and 3.0 GPAs.

 

[kpcrew]

😕Not sure what you mean. The interview serves the same purpose in almost all context.


😕 The assessment is a function of your outcomes and feedback. So you disagree with Law2Doc when he said:
?



😕 A successful interview is one that got you the job, research position, summer program seat, the full ride scholarship, etc. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

It's because those things don't matter as much as for your career as getting into medical school. If you want to be a doctor, you must go to medical school. To get into medical school, you must have a successful interview. If you don't make it, there's another few thousand dollars in application fees and other expenses along with a wasted year filled with stress and anxiety. There's a lot of pressure riding on it because of the difficulty; most people don't even get to the point where they can send out applications and fewer than half of the total applicant pool will get a spot. I don't know if you've had interviews yet but from the sound of it, you haven't. I thought interviewing was difficult, there are so many expectations and a lot of pressure. If you interview for a research position, you know that they're looking for someone who knows a bit about science and has a good work ethic. In my humble opinion, the expectations for medical school interviews tend to be more nebulous because you don't know exactly what they're looking for even if you have the general idea.

Law2Doc means that if you are successful, you know you had a good interview because the results tell you that you had a good interview. Perhaps you clicked with the interviewer or you said the right things in your answers. It doesn't make you a good judge of your interviewing skills. Having good results and understanding the process are two different things.

 

[mehc012]

Law2Doc means that if you are successful, you know you had a good interview because the results tell you that you had a good interview. Perhaps you clicked with the interviewer or you said the right things in your answers. It doesn't make you a good judge of your interviewing skills. Having good results and understanding the process are two different things.

In other words, just because you had a successful interview (of any sort) doesn't mean that you know why you were successful, which is information you'd need in order to judge whether another interview went well.

Being the interviewer gives you a chance to learn what types of things really make a successful interview, as well as a lot more exposure to interviewees of differing levels.

Wow, let's see how many times I can fit the word 'interview' into a single sentence!

 

[alerk323]

Nick's main point is that the intervewee often has a squewed perception of how the interview actually went. This makes sense.

However, just beause you got accepted or not does not tell you whether your interview was good or bad. If you get in, your interview was most likely at least passable but other than that, based on LizzyM's post, you're acceptance or rejection could have been because of a host of other factors.

 

[MedPR]

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)

It's kind of hard to quantitatively show how much more important an interview is than stats. As others have already said, your stats get you the interview, but if you suck at interviewing your stats won't get you in.

 

[Law2Doc]

Everyone's not equal at interview, plus those students that get invited to interviews tend to have good stats in the first place. Adcoms aren't inviting too many students with 25 MCAT and 3.0 GPAs.

No that's my and others point -- your not getting it. These schools only invite people with high numbers precisely SO they can treat everybody as equal. if everybody who shows up to interview has already been screened on paper, they can use good fit and strong interview as the exclusive measures from that point forward.

 

[LizzyM]

No that's my and others point -- your not getting it. These schools only invite people with high numbers precisely SO they can treat everybody as equal. if everybody who shows up to interview has already been screened on paper, they can use good fit and strong interview as the exclusive measures from that point forward.

Almost everyone has good stats and ECs but not everyone is equal. We do see a half dozen 4.0/40s and we see many 3.7/35 and we see some 3.5/33 and we are going to see a few special cases with 3.2/29. While none are so bad that they could never be admitted in a million years, the high stat people won't have to work as hard during the interview to impress us as the 3.2/29 will have to.

 

[deleted329605]

This thread could also be called, "if all birds have wings, how to explain penguins?"

 

[La Presse]

This thread could also be called, "if all birds have wings, how to explain penguins?"

I knew this chick who recently (last cycle) interviewed at UVM. She claimed that her interviewer encouraged her and absolutely loved her. She is a nontraditional, but her statistics (ECs were fantastic) were abnormally lower than UVM's. Additionally, she received her interview later in the cycle.

Rejected. So, perhaps it was her stats? Or maybe she she interviewed poorly and tried to exaggerate her interviewing skills? Who knows?