Interview/Acceptance ratios

[efle]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Sounds higher actually

? Most schools accept ballpark 1/3rd-1/2 of interviewees. It's the II vs matriculant ratios that get crazy for schools that struggle with yield.

 

[freak7]

? Most schools accept ballpark 1/3rd-1/2 of interviewees. It's the II vs matriculant ratios that get crazy for schools that struggle with yield.

Most schools I've interviewed at have a 10% II to app ratio. 40% accepted sounds extremely high.
Ignore me, I can't read

 

[aldol16]

Don't interviewees for grad school get their flights + place to stay paid for? Would be very interested to hear how the ratios compared at selective PhD programs

Yes. I'm familiar with the top PhD programs in chemistry and once you get to the interview stage, the chance of you being accepted is very high, if not unity. Interviews are more of a formality and don't have that much weight in decisions for grad school.

 

[WhittyPsyche]

Are PIs on the hook for the costs? Did not realize that

Something like 2 accepted out of 5 interviewed actually sounds like the ratio at most med schools though

It is part of the funding for the grad student's position. It does sound like not such a bad thing ratio wise, but I think it is worrisome because it completely comes down to "does this faculty member like you". Only interviewing 5 people, actually not sure how many people applied but there is a clear applicant type being sought. The interview to me seems very difficult because you are being interviewed by the person who is supervising you for the next 4-6 years, and in this example the two grad students are both almost identical personalities so you start to see the trend in the "type" that gets into the program over the years.

At least with medical school you are interviewing with pretty much 3rd parties, they can be a but more objective, and varying personalities get in. I appreciate that kind of diversity.

One thing I like about the PhD process though is there is an unwritten rule in may field to only hold 2 acceptances at a time. So if you get another, you drop your least favorite. The process then ends up being a lot shorter because schools know who will likely matriculate and the applicants have more peace of mind. This is also hinged on the fact that they are funded so choosing a school is not a financial decision, like med school tends to be.

 

[aldol16]

It is part of the funding for the grad student's position. It does sound like not such a bad thing ratio wise, but I think it is worrisome because it completely comes down to "does this faculty member like you". Only interviewing 5 people, actually not sure how many people applied but there is a clear applicant type being sought. The interview to me seems very difficult because you are being interviewed by the person who is supervising you for the next 4-6 years, and in this example the two grad students are both almost identical personalities so you start to see the trend in the "type" that gets into the program over the years.

At least with medical school you are interviewing with pretty much 3rd parties, they can be a but more objective, and varying personalities get in. I appreciate that kind of diversity.

One thing I like about the PhD process though is there is an unwritten rule in may field to only hold 2 acceptances at a time. So if you get another, you drop your least favorite. The process then ends up being a lot shorter because schools know who will likely matriculate and the applicants have more peace of mind. This is also hinged on the fact that they are funded so choosing a school is not a financial decision, like med school tends to be.

It's all very similar to a job interview in industry. Having interviewed for both types of positions, I can say that it's a good thing to be interviewed by your supervisor because you get a good sense of who he/she will be. 5-6 years is a long time to spend with somebody who has almost absolute control over your future, so it's a good thing to be able to meet them and make a good choice. However, graduate students commonly rotate through labs anyway so the person you think you're going to work with may not be the person you actually work with when you matriculate.

The grad school process is also a bit different because you generally apply to a program with a particular research supervisor or supervisors in mind. Where you go is less important than who you work for, although the best people are generally more concentrated at the "best" institutions. US News ranking thus doesn't mean that much when it comes to grad school. If you're doing organometallics, you go to Bob Grubbs or Crabtree. Prestige is tied more to the name of your PI rather than institution.

 

[efle]

I appreciate you guys' insights !

But I'm surprised at the specifically targeted PIs, my understanding from the lab I was in during college is that almost everyone rotates through a few labs after admission and picks their favorite?

 

[libertyyne]

I appreciate you guys' insights !

But I'm surprised at the specifically targeted PIs, my understanding from the lab I was in during college is that almost everyone rotates through a few labs after admission and picks their favorite?

It would make sense to go to a place where they are doing the specific type of research you are interested in. That is usually tied to a few names throughout the nation.

 

[WhittyPsyche]

I appreciate you guys' insights !

But I'm surprised at the specifically targeted PIs, my understanding from the lab I was in during college is that almost everyone rotates through a few labs after admission and picks their favorite?

This is not the case in Psychology, which is what I am the most familiar with. You stay with the one who brought you on. I have heard of people moving after things did not work out with their PI due to personality clashes or what have you. Other fields, yes.

 

[aldol16]

But I'm surprised at the specifically targeted PIs, my understanding from the lab I was in during college is that almost everyone rotates through a few labs after admission and picks their favorite?

You're not obligated to stay with your first lab and you can certainly rotate if you choose. However, it would be very careless to apply to programs without an idea of which lab you want to be in. It's understood that that might change. But the question "What kind of work do you want to do and which PI here would be best suited for that?" will definitely come up. Again, graduate students go to graduate school to work for a specific PI. I went to my lab because I wanted to work with a certain PI, who was doing what I wanted to do. This is how you pick graduate schools - things like school rank don't really matter in grad school.

Again, you have the option of rotating through and some schools might even require rotations but graduate students should never choose a school without knowing who they want to work for there. That makes for a terrible 5-6 years, as you might end up working for someone whose work you're not interested in.

 

[NeuResurgens]

Oh, I believe it's more than somewhat arbitrary - it's completely arbitrary. They can afford to say, "Well, we want someone who will want to take part in our free clinic to fill this spot, so we're going to look for someone who shows demonstrated interest in that." Or, "Perhaps we want a musician who can contribute to our music in medicine programs."

It's such a competitive and high-achieving group of people that once you get to the interview stage, one small thing might be enough to distinguish one person from another. Or as some of the adcoms above were saying, sometimes it's a matter of one applicant wowing two out of three interviewers and simply being good for the third, while another applicant wows all three.

 

[aldol16]

It's such a competitive and high-achieving group of people that once you get to the interview stage, one small thing might be enough to distinguish one person from another. Or as some of the adcoms above were saying, sometimes it's a matter of one applicant wowing two out of three interviewers and simply being good for the third, while another applicant wows all three.

I don't think it's as simple a metric as how many interviewers you "wow" but I think holistically, you should come off as a very strong and passionate applicant during the admissions committee meeting. So being strong and passionate in all of your interviews and having a strong application overall. It's not as simple as "Oh, Rob only had the 'wow' factor with two interviewers but not the third and Kate 'wowed' all three interviewers so we must admit Kate." The point of holistic admissions is that it can't be reduced down to something that numerical.

 

[doctorbob23]

We many never know what happens behind those godly admissions doors.

 

[NeuResurgens]

I don't think it's as simple a metric as how many interviewers you "wow" but I think holistically, you should come off as a very strong and passionate applicant during the admissions committee meeting. So being strong and passionate in all of your interviews and having a strong application overall. It's not as simple as "Oh, Rob only had the 'wow' factor with two interviewers but not the third and Kate 'wowed' all three interviewers so we must admit Kate." The point of holistic admissions is that it can't be reduced down to something that numerical.

It was meant more as a general principle - that the nuances of the different impressions made on interviewers might factor in between two otherwise similarly qualified and competitive candidates.

 

[LizzyM]

Sadly, we do interview some people who will be waitlisted if they do well and rejected if they do poorly. These candidates are usually have GPA and MCAT at or below the 10th percentile (often well below) and connections to powerful individuals in academia, government or industry. When someone makes a call on behalf of a VIP's relative, there is a strong likelihood that the candidate will be interviewed despite being a poor candidate for admission.

 

[efle]

Sadly, we do interview some people who will be waitlisted if they do well and rejected if they do poorly. These candidates are usually have GPA and MCAT at or below the 10th percentile (often well below) and connections to powerful individuals in academia, government or industry. When someone makes a call on behalf of a VIP's relative, there is a strong likelihood that the candidate will be interviewed despite being a poor candidate for admission.

I'm comfortable mentally excluding the well connected! I'm just concerned if that ever occurs for "normal" applicants. If Bobby Joe with no powerful friends or family is in that situation, waitlist if he interviews great and reject if he doesn't, it seems somewhat unfair to be having him fly out and spend a day with you.

 

[LizzyM]

I'm comfortable mentally excluding the well connected! I'm just concerned if that ever occurs for "normal" applicants. If Bobby Joe with no powerful friends or family is in that situation, waitlist if he interviews great and reject if he doesn't, it seems somewhat unfair to be having him fly out and spend a day with you.

Bobby Joe is never getting an interview. We have too many strong candidates to spend time with him.

 

[libertyyne]

Bobby Joe is never getting an interview. We have too many strong candidates to spend time with him.

Would anyone who is offered an interview be rejected post interview for anything other than their interview performance(excluding Barron Trumps) ? Rather than just placing them on the bottom of the waitlist.

 

[efle]

Would anyone who is offered an interview be rejected post interview for anything other than their interview performance

I bet if they cheated on a test, or stabbed somebody

 

[LizzyM]

Schools vary in how they treat the waitlist versus rejections post-interview. Some would argue that rejecting is more merciful if it is unlikely that the waitlist will move enough to reach the applicant. Others feel that if the candidate is suitable but not being chosen due to lack of space, then it is cruel to reject them and that the candidate ought to be waitlisted although it results in being held in limbo until the start of the school year or when the candidate withdraws, whichever happens first.

Keep in mind that there are interviews that are fine and there are those that blow us away. Sometime an applicant has to blow us away to balance an otherwise deficient application (but one hopes to be blown away, particularly if the applicant brings something rare to the table). However, if the applicant is merely "fine" or "adequate" or "acceptable" then maybe that isn't good enough and there will be adcom members who will argue that the applicant will not be able to do well academically and get through the first two years despite an exceptional personality that would make it possible to be a good physician. Sometimes we don't always agree about what the predictive value of undergrad record and MCAT with respect to board scores and completion in 4 or 5 years. That can generate a long discussion about a candidate that someone will champion while others will question why the applicant was even interviewed.

 

[libertyyne]

I bet if they cheated on a test, or stabbed somebody

yeah, but would they have even been offered the interview if that was on their AMCAS. If they cheated on a test during Interview day I would be impressed. If they stabbed someone in the throat on interview day I would be impressed as well, considering how the competition for medical school at that point would have literally become cut throat.

 

[Yorick]

Would anyone who is offered an interview be rejected post interview for anything other than their interview performance(excluding Barron Trumps) ? Rather than just placing them on the bottom of the waitlist.

Maybe if they think you're just a bad fit for the school. Or there was a deficiency in your application like clinical experience that the screeners didn't look at (maybe they focus on GPA/MCAT and secondary answers pre II) but becomes the death sentence from the AdCom. I interviewed at two schools on consecutive days, was rejected at the first one and accepted to the second one. My answers really haven't changed throughout my interviews and I doubt my performance itself was bad enough to warrant a rejection alone, but who knows the first school was my first traditional interview so I could have **** the bed and they wanted to make sure I knew.

 

[libertyyne]

Maybe if they think you're just a bad fit for the school. Or there was a deficiency in your application like clinical experience that the screeners didn't look at (maybe they focus on GPA/MCAT and secondary answers pre II) but becomes the death sentence from the AdCom. I interviewed at two schools on consecutive days, was rejected at the first one and accepted to the second one. My answers really haven't changed throughout my interviews and I doubt my performance itself was bad enough to warrant a rejection alone, but who knows the first school was my first traditional interview so I could have **** the bed and they wanted to make sure I knew.

Perhaps the school's missions differed?
Perceptions of the interviewers were different ?
Your delivery of the answers were not compelling at one?
Nerves and First interview?
You rubbed the interview the wrong way with one of your answers at school A and didnt at school B because of the interviewer's biases?

It seems cruel to invite someone and then reject them for the GPA/MCAT ECs or what ever that can be gathered from their amcas application. Schools only have a limited amount of interview spots why waste one if the person doesnt meet other criteria that can be judged on paper?

 

[YayPudding]

I bet if they cheated on a test, or stabbed somebody

efle with the dramatic scenarios

 

[Goro]

Wow! So much to discuss in this thread! At my school, I've never seen this happen.

Do you ever see people that are rated highly by all (both?) their interviewers end up not getting in?

This is exactly the case at my school. Note to all interviewees: in a group interview, rolling your eyes at other people's answers, or looking bored is a death sentence. I have written int he past as to what other sins merit a post-interview outright rejection, which is actually a rare occurrence.

Post interview straight rejections seem like they could have only been the result of poor interview performance. If not there is more pointless sadism in this process then I first realized.

I believe that lying on an app and having it uncovered, or some other dishonesty that would be discovered during an interview, would apply here, Lib.

Would anyone who is offered an interview be rejected post interview for anything other than their interview performance(excluding Barron Trumps) ? Rather than just placing them on the bottom of the waitlist.

My learned colleague is at an MD school located up int he stratosphere. I'm at a reasonably decent DO school. Ye what LizzyM describes here is 100% identical to what I have seen! Sometimes "fine" isn't good enough.

Keep in mind that there are interviews that are fine and there are those that blow us away. Sometime an applicant has to blow us away to balance an otherwise deficient application (but one hopes to be blown away, particularly if the applicant brings something rare to the table). However, if the applicant is merely "fine" or "adequate" or "acceptable" then maybe that isn't good enough and there will be adcom members who will argue that the applicant will not be able to do well academically and get through the first two years despite an exceptional personality that would make it possible to be a good physician. Sometimes we don't always agree about what the predictive value of undergrad record and MCAT with respect to board scores and completion in 4 or 5 years. That can generate a long discussion about a candidate that someone will champion while others will question why the applicant was even interviewed.

Turning to PhD program interviews, this is correct. I went to PhD program in my field at a top medical school. The most students matriculated in any given year was six, and the smallest was three. The numbers depend upon how many qualified people interview. Good grad students are hard to find. It's a buyers market for them, unlike for med schools.

Don't interviewees for grad school get their flights + place to stay paid for? Would be very interested to hear how the ratios compared at selective PhD programs

Most programs don't interview many applicants. Ex. A PI in clinical psychology program at a HYP that I am familiar with, interviewed 5 students last year, accepted two. 3/4 PIs in the department with similar numbers makes it not so expensive to pay for everything.

They're not. The graduate program or school pays for students. Most PhD programs get training grants to pay for this kind of stuff. PIs may partially pay into this via indirects from extramural grants. 2/5 sounds about right, from what I remember about interviewing candidates.

Are PIs on the hook for the costs? Did not realize that

Something like 2 accepted out of 5 interviewed actually sounds like the ratio at most med schools though

I think that this is also true. But I do remember sitting next to one candidate during a dinner and thinking how odd he was. Other people picked up o this and he wasn't accepted.

Yes. I'm familiar with the top PhD programs in chemistry and once you get to the interview stage, the chance of you being accepted is very high, if not unity. Interviews are more of a formality and don't have that much weight in decisions for grad school.

You're correct, efle. The students choose which labs they want to work in.

And not all labs have people rotate through during every rotation slot. Remember, there are more PIs than first year students. There were never enough in my own lab that we had to vote for our fave among the three. But one guy named Hans (who looked exactly liked the character in "Where's Waldo?") rotated through our lab and he just was a pain in the ass. He had wanted to go to a C elegans lab and they all voted him down! He narrowed down his choices to our lab and a Drosophila one, and I still vividly remember the day he decided to pick a lab. He was explaining to me his decision, and I was dreading, just dreading, that he was going to pick ours. But he was actually explaining why he chose the other lab.

You just just imagine the internal sigh of relief I made!!!

But I'm surprised at the specifically targeted PIs, my understanding from the lab I was in during college is that almost everyone rotates through a few labs after admission and picks their favorite?