Importance of interview for schools that don't interview many applicants?

[beckmancoulter]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm just wondering, there seems to be some schools that interview very few applicants so basically they accept over 70% or so of interviewees. Other schools interview far more and accept less than 40%. Do you think the interview is more important/has more weight for those schools that don't interview many or vice versa? I'm trying to use this info as more criteria in choosing schools since I'm not likely to have great interviews.

 

[ozzi22]

I'm just wondering, there seems to be some schools that interview very few applicants so basically they accept over 70% or so of interviewees. Other schools interview far more and accept less than 40%. Do you think the interview is more important/has more weight for those schools that don't interview many or vice versa? I'm trying to use this info as more criteria in choosing schools since I'm not likely to have great interviews.

what makes you think that? unless your an a**, you wont have much of a problem.

 

[Alejandro]

Yeah, i was under the impression that once you get to the interview stage, grades for the most part are thrown out of the window...obviously there are exceptions, but it seems to be the norm...?

 

[eablackwell]

Yeah, i was under the impression that once you get to the interview stage, grades for the most part are thrown out of the window...obviously there are exceptions, but it seems to be the norm...?

This is VERY school specific.

 

[gettheleadout]

This is VERY school specific.

This, this, this.

And OP, have you tried doing mock interviews and stress reduction practices?

 

[Tapepsi]

The weight of the interview, like everyone has been saying, varies. At one school it may only be worth 15% of the decision where at other schools it can be as much as 35%.

Bottom line: Don't screw it up. Practice, practice, practice.

 

[Eric01]

I'm not sure if interviews are really quantifiable? I've never talked to anyone about it but it seems interviews are more or less screening devices.

So you might have a 4.0 and 40 MCAT, but if you exhibit personality traits like schizophrenia then you're not going to be accepted, regardless if its 15-35% of your application score?

Does anyone know if schools actually attach percentages to interview weight?

But ya, I mean there will always be that element of all or nothing.

You probably don't have to be stellar, just respond to questions, maintain eye contact, and don't go into psychosis and you should be fine.

 

[Tapepsi]

I'm not sure if interviews are really quantifiable? I've never talked to anyone about it but it seems interviews are more or less screening devices

Interviews can definitely be quantifiable. Many schools give applicants scores based on their interview (you can look online for sample score sheets).

I think some people go in with the idea that once you've gotten to the interview stage all other aspects of your application aren't relevant (which isn't true).

 

[beckmancoulter]

what makes you think that? unless your an a**, you wont have much of a problem.

I'm just being realistic I mean some people are naturally very likable and speak well, others (me) have to work on it a lot and will probably never be at their level.

And back to my original question..
Say school A interviews 1000 and accepts 200 vs school B that interviews 600 and accepts 400.

My thinking:
School A seemingly puts more emphasis on the interview since they have to use some other criteria to cut down their list by a lot.

School B already has a good idea of who they are going to accept so they don't need to interview that many people.

What do you think?

 

[BarcaBest23]

unfortunately at some schools I can tell interviews don't mean ****. You know the ones that only give 1 and it is a rushed 30 min. sessions before they bring the next "candidate" in. With that said, no it is not like a job interview, there yes they like you on paper but then want to see you in person, in med school they like you on paper, want to see you in person, then go back to paper with others and argue.

 

[Donnie1310]

And back to my original question..
Say school A interviews 1000 and accepts 200 vs school B that interviews 600 and accepts 400.

My thinking:
School A seemingly puts more emphasis on the interview since they have to use some other criteria to cut down their list by a lot.

School B already has a good idea of who they are going to accept so they don't need to interview that many people.

What do you think?

I used that line of thought only to cut down expenses for my reach schools. Some schools have to interview and accept a crap ton of people because they get a lot of their acceptances withdrawn by applicants who get in elsewhere.

Others interview a ton but accept very few. Still others interview few and accept few.

I say if its a reach school that doesn't interview and or accept a percentage you're comfortable with, and money is tight, cut it.

If you're competitive for a school numbers-wise, put less weight into this data, and more into IS/OOS (if there's a preference), appeal of the school (curriculum, location, etc), etc to narrow your list.

 

[NickNaylor]

And back to my original question..
Say school A interviews 1000 and accepts 200 vs school B that interviews 600 and accepts 400.

My thinking:
School A seemingly puts more emphasis on the interview since they have to use some other criteria to cut down their list by a lot.

School B already has a good idea of who they are going to accept so they don't need to interview that many people.

What do you think?

No. The Ivies waitlist several hundred applicants each year, and I assure you it's not because they value the interview that much. It just means that school A has the resources to interview a lot of people.

Also, with respect to whether or not the rest of your application still "matters" once you're invited to an interview, it is HIGHLY school dependent as others said. The director of admissions at Michigan, for example, rhetorically asked us why the adcom would emphasize one day's performance over 3+ years of activities, experiences, etc.. On the other hand, the admissions dean at Mayo said that once we made it to the interview our numbers were irrelevant (note: the rest of the application was still pertinent). What "matters" at various stages of the process is dependent on the philosophy of the particular school.

 

[raltima07]

No. The Ivies waitlist several hundred applicants each year, and I assure you it's not because they value the interview that much. It just means that school A has the resources to interview a lot of people.

Also, with respect to whether or not the rest of your application still "matters" once you're invited to an interview, it is HIGHLY school dependent as others said. The director of admissions at Michigan, for example, rhetorically asked us why the adcom would emphasize one day's performance over 3+ years of activities, experiences, etc.. On the other hand, the admissions dean at Mayo said that once we made it to the interview our numbers were irrelevant (note: the rest of the application was still pertinent). What "matters" at various stages of the process is dependent on the philosophy of the particular school.

THank you for the insight!

 

[Lil Mick]

My experience was pretty similar to Nick's. There are a lot of different factors, and each school weighs them differently. Timing of an interview can play an important role, as well (if the spots are filled, you won't get in even with a stellar interview). This is something I've seen as I've been involved with admissions at my particular school and especially in MD/PhD programs...

 

[beckmancoulter]

Darn it, I thought I was on to something but I guess not.

Thanks all for your input.

 

[bluetwosky]

At some schools, interviews don't mean anything. At other schools, they still don't mean anything.

Well...not really...interviews CAN help you out greatly, but don't go into the application cycle thinking that every interview you do will make you shine. At some interviews, you and your interviewer will "click" and you'll get an acceptance...at other interviews, you and your interviewer won't...and the school will fall back on looking at your numbers/activities...

 

[LizzyM]

Do you really know how many are accepted? Where do you find that information? The number who matriculate is known but some schools make 3 offers to fill each seat and others make more, or less. Some schools reject a large proportion post-interview and some reject <10% and waitlist almost everyone who doesn't get an outright offer.

Pick a school because you can get a cheap flight there or they have student hosts (check interview feedback for this information) but proportion interviewed who get admitted is a poor and unreliable measure.

 

[Law2Doc]

The pre-allo take on interviews has never jibed with that of folks who actually have had a window into the process. I'll continue to give my unpopular advice that continues to ring true for those of us further along in the process. It is unpopular because folks who worked so hard in undergrad don't like the idea that everything they worked for can go out the window in a 30 minute interview that will make or break you. But that's life.

At most places the interview is the most important thing if you get to that stage. Repeat, the most important thing. More important than grades, than MCAT, than ECs. All those are huge in actually getting the interview, but once you get through that door, how you sell yourself takes the front row seat. Some places are more formal about it -- and take the "everyone who got here is on an equal playing field" approach -- there are a couple of schools that actually announce this to applicants on interview day. Other places simply give a certain amount of points for each part of the application, with the interview getting a relatively huge amount of points as compared to things like grades. Everyone who gets into med school is going to meet up with a fair number of outgoing classmates who will confide in having had very borderline numbers and clearly vaulted past a large number of braniacs with much better numbers on the strength of their interviews. That's pretty much the norm. You use your paper app to get in the door, but once you are in, it's the interview that decides if you stay there or get cast aside to a waitlist or worse.

Medicine is a very social profession, and you will earn your living talking to people -- patients, other doctors, families. You will be working in teams for many years throughout your training. Being able to come across good in person is huge. And thus a big part of the selection of who will thrive in this people oriented profession is going to be the interview, the one window into your personality.

So OP, rather than try to game the system and pick non-interview focused schools because you are "not likely to have great interviews", it's much higher yield to try to fix your interview skills. This is a learnable skill, and one you master by practice.

You can never go wrong treating the interview as extremely important. You can ruin your chances by kidding yourself that it's not. Every year there are some folks on SDN who end up as reapplicants, whining about how random and unfair the admissions process is and how they had better numbers than most of the applicants but came up short. Most of the time it's because they came across in person as badly as some came across on SDN. They didn't know how to sell themselves, and wanted their paper files to do the talking for them. Doesn't work like that.

So yes, once you get to the interview stage, it becomes the most important thing. Prepare accordingly.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Do you really know how many are accepted? Where do you find that information? The number who matriculate is known but some schools make 3 offers to fill each seat and others make more, or less. Some schools reject a large proportion post-interview and some reject <10% and waitlist almost everyone who doesn't get an outright offer.

Pick a school because you can get a cheap flight there or they have student hosts (check interview feedback for this information) but proportion interviewed who get admitted is a poor and unreliable measure.

this info can be found in the paid version of USNEWS rankings

 

[dbeast]

this info can be found in the paid version of USNEWS rankings

Get out of my SDN with your advertising spam! Mods... banhammer please. 😡

 

[just one]

My school interviews around 350 candidates for 168 spots. During my application season, a wait list of 75 students was formed. The interview evaluation process gave five scores of either accept, reject, defer. In order to be on the wait list, you needed accept from all five scores. So with around 243 interviewees of the total 350 getting the highest interview marks, how do they rank the wait list and acceptance order? Mainly by a formula consisting of weighting the mcat and gap scores equally. So gpa and mcat still matter after interview. This was all told to me by the admission committee during my application process so it is not my assumption.

But as stated earlier, very school specific

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Get out of my SDN with your advertising spam! Mods... banhammer please. 😡

you just jelly that my fairy veterinarian is better than you