EDIT: maybe that title should be "Interviews: the View From Behind the Curtain!"
I just answered a PM and my correspondent, who just had an interview asked " ...I saw what looked like a grading rubric... is it possible that you are literally evaluated on paper? But have you heard of such a thing?
Also what's with the note taking? Like what gets written down exactly?"
With interviews, the interviewer does have a score sheet. Questions for the interviewee might be written down on them as well. Without going into too much detail, we score interviewees on their ability think, talk and to listen. We also give them an overall final score.
We write down notes about both good and bad things interviewees say do (like "babbling idiot"; "didn't answer Joe's question"; "really articulate"; "great answer!"). We also might jot something down to prompt a follow-up question. When we're done, we write our final summaries on the candidates (the more we write, the better for our wily old Admissions Dean when he discusses the outcome with our Dean, who is the Ultimate Decider.
"So is there a certain weight that's given to these scores? "
At our score it's just the one that's called "Overall Ranking". This is averaged with those of the other interviewers. You need a certain number to be accepted. Even then, candidates do come up for discussion at times in the Adcom meeting. My score may be very divergent from the other interviewers (Drs X and Y and student Z), and one of us will want it to be straightened out, one way or another in the meeting.
So is it pass or fail? Or does having a very strong interview help you "beat" other applicants who have slightly better apps who had average interviews only?
With all due respect to my young correspondent, this notion that one interviewee is competing for one seat against other candidates (like tenure candidates at Yale) is 100% NOT true! We don't ration seats; it's always you competing against yourself.
The scoring system more like boxing or Olympic gymnastics. You are judged by several different people. The total scores determine your fate.
But even that is not absolute. For example, let's say that I may love you and give you a 10/10, but X, Y and Z might give you a 7, 5 and 2. That's an average of 6 (24/4 = 6). You need a 7 or more to be accepted, while and a 3 or worse would be rejected. So the Admissions dean now lists you as "wait list".
In the Adcom meeting, I argue that the candidate was a great kid, strong upward trend, decent MCAT, yada yada, etc etc. Y is also at the meeting, but his argument doesn't carry as much weight amongst the Adcom. X and Z didn't come to the meeting, and all we have are their notes to go on, and there's nothing damning among them. So I sway the committee to move the candidate to "Accept" status.
Here's a different scenario: Despite all interviewers loving you, the Dean has concerns about your GPA. The Dean loves high GPAs. So he overrules the committee, and onto the waitlist you go.
Capeesh?
