interview advice

[caffeine37]

---

Members don't see this ad.

so...I'm pretty sure I'm going to be either waitlisted or rejected by a school that I interviewed at in September. most other people on SDN got phone calls already, and I was told by someone in the admissions office that "a letter was sent to me"

I am completely nervous now about the rest of my interviews. I felt like this particular one went well, too. I made the interviewer laugh and I felt as though we got along. My stats are higher than their averages, so I felt like this school was a good bet. I have about 10 other interviews, not all of them have gone as well as that one, and I am now nervous about my chances in general. I'm a nice, non-anti social type...but now I think I don't interview well....

 

[LT2]

so...I'm pretty sure I'm going to be either waitlisted or rejected by a school that I interviewed at in September. most other people on SDN got phone calls already, and I was told by someone in the admissions office that "a letter was sent to me"

I am completely nervous now about the rest of my interviews. I felt like this particular one went well, too. I made the interviewer laugh and I felt as though we got along. My stats are higher than their averages, so I felt like this school was a good bet. I have about 10 other interviews, not all of them have gone as well as that one, and I am now nervous about my chances in general. I'm a nice, non-anti social type...but now I think I don't interview well....

don't worry about anything until there's something to worry about. don't let that interview cast a shadow of doubt on yourself, if you do, THEN you'll have a problem!! considering you have TEN more interviews, i'm sure you'll do fine. if it ends up you do get waitlisted/rejected at that school, sit down with your advisor, a mentor, a professor and have them evaluate your interview style. if you are rejected at the first school you interviewed at, call them and ask about why. they might have advice for your future interviews if it was in fact your interview that caused the waitlist/rejection. hope that helps and good luck!

 

[Law2Doc]

so...I'm pretty sure I'm going to be either waitlisted or rejected by a school that I interviewed at in September. most other people on SDN got phone calls already, and I was told by someone in the admissions office that "a letter was sent to me"

I am completely nervous now about the rest of my interviews. I felt like this particular one went well, too. I made the interviewer laugh and I felt as though we got along. My stats are higher than their averages, so I felt like this school was a good bet. I have about 10 other interviews, not all of them have gone as well as that one, and I am now nervous about my chances in general. I'm a nice, non-anti social type...but now I think I don't interview well....

First, bear in mind that once you get to the interview stage, your stats at most places are meaningless -- i.e. everyone who is interviewed has "made the cut" and has the chance to win or lose a spot. Thus assume everyone who gets interviewed is all you are competing with and forget about the stats/averages (that part is over -- nice job for making that cut, now forget about it and push on). The interview is not merely a formality - it is your chance to win yourself a med school seat... Next, bear in mind that schools can only take about a quarter of those interviewed, and so at every school some exceptional students won't get offers because another 25% of those seen were even more exceptional, or the school felt they were somehow a better fit. Thus your interview could have been "good", but someone else that interviewer saw may have been better. Interviewing is a learnable skill, and so you can practice -- in front of others, videotape, a mirror etc. Get feedback from someone else if you can. Have good questions, make good eye contact, have a firm handshake. And bear in mind that most people aren't the best judge as to how well or poorly they interview.
Good luck!

 

[Gentle]

First, bear in mind that once you get to the interview stage, your stats at most places are meaningless -- i.e. everyone who is interviewed has "made the cut" and has the chance to win or lose a spot. Thus assume everyone who gets interviewed is all you are competing with and forget about the stats/averages (that part is over -- nice job for making that cut, now forget about it and push on). The interview is not merely a formality - it is your chance to win yourself a med school seat... Next, bear in mind that schools can only take about a quarter of those interviewed, and so at every school some exceptional students won't get offers because another 25% of those seen were even more exceptional, or the school felt they were somehow a better fit. Thus your interview could have been "good", but someone else that interviewer saw may have been better. Interviewing is a learnable skill, and so you can practice -- in front of others, videotape, a mirror etc. Get feedback from someone else if you can. Have good questions, make good eye contact, have a firm handshake. And bear in mind that most people aren't the best judge as to how well or poorly they interview.
Good luck!

Low2Doc,

Great post!

 

[pseudoknot]

Next, bear in mind that schools can only take about a quarter of those interviewed

You've said this in other posts, but it isn't correct. Most school accept about half their interviewees. You may be confused by the fact that only 25% of interviewees matriculate.

 

[Law2Doc]

You've said this in other posts, but it isn't correct. Most school accept about half their interviewees. You may be confused by the fact that only 25% of interviewees matriculate.

No -I'm pretty sure that 25% was accurate (although some schools may accept half. I'll try and find where I came up with this percentage (may have been a Kaplan or TPR publication). But a quick look on the web shows that Amherst college is telling its premeds that schools tend to accept 10-40% from the interview pool.
See eg.
http://www.amherst.edu/~sageorge/guide2d.html

 

[DarkFark]

No -I'm pretty sure that 25% was accurate (although some schools may accept half. I'll try and find where I came up with this percentage (may have been a Kaplan or TPR publication). But a quick look on the web shows that Amherst college is telling its premeds that schools tend to accept 10-40% from the interview pool.
See eg.
http://www.amherst.edu/~sageorge/guide2d.html

Schools I applied to (because I alreday did the math):

Harvard Int: 711 Acc: 255 36%
Johns Hopkins Int: 583 Acc: 253 43%
WashU Int: 1168 Acc: 338 29%
UMich Int: 792 Acc: 429 54%
Columbia Int: 1157 Acc: 278 24%
Cornell: Int: 765 Acc: 222 29%
Pitt Int: 897 Acc: 454 51%
Case Int: 831 Acc: 448 54%
Northwestern Int:874 Acc: 337 40%
UMDNJ-NJ Int: 716 Acc: 446 62%
UMDNJ-RWJ Int: 617 Acc: 339 55%


there. 25% is NOT the average, its the absolute bare minimum. And most of the state schools are ABOVE 50%.

SUNY-Buffalo -70%
UMTC: 64%
Southern IL: 52%
Oklahoma: 72%

I could find dozens more about 50%. In short, only the absolute cream of the crop is in the vicinity of 25%. Can I make it any more clear? Please stop spreading disinformation!

 

[argonana]

First, bear in mind that once you get to the interview stage, your stats at most places are meaningless -- i.e. everyone who is interviewed has "made the cut" and has the chance to win or lose a spot. Thus assume everyone who gets interviewed is all you are competing with and forget about the stats/averages (that part is over -- nice job for making that cut, now forget about it and push on).

You know, it's just not true that one's paper qualifications get thrown out the window post-interview. A quick look on mdapplicants shows that interviewed, accepted applicants consistently have higher MCATs and GPAs, and more relevant ECs, than applicants who interviewed and were not accepted. Of the two schools I've received decisions from so far, I KNOW that they both go back and look at your entire application when making a decision. The interview notes just become a part of the rest of your file.

Also, I would have to agree with those who've posted that the 25% figure is way too low. Of the schools I'm interviewing at, the following percentages of interviewees are accepted:

Vanderbilt: 36%
Wake: 52%
USC Keck: 64%
Chicago, Pritzker: 46%
Emory: 42%
UPenn: 32%
Tufts: 53%

Even Harvard accepts 32% of its interviewees.

Duke and Columbia do accept exactly 25%, and Yale (27%), Cornell (29%), and WashU (29%) come close--but these figures are very very rare, and they usually go with the schools that interview near or over 1000 applicants each year.

 

[Law2Doc]

You know, it's just not true that one's paper qualifications get thrown out the window post-interview. A quick look on mdapplicants shows that interviewed, accepted applicants consistently have higher MCATs and GPAs, and more relevant ECs, than applicants who interviewed and were not accepted. Of the two schools I've received decisions from so far, I KNOW that they both go back and look at your entire application when making a decision. The interview notes just become a part of the rest of your file.

Also, I would have to agree with those who've posted that the 25% figure is way too low. Of the schools I'm interviewing at, the following percentages of interviewees are accepted:

Vanderbilt: 36%
Wake: 52%
USC Keck: 64%
Chicago, Pritzker: 46%
Emory: 42%
UPenn: 32%
Tufts: 53%

Even Harvard accepts 32% of its interviewees.

Duke and Columbia do accept exactly 25%, and Yale (27%), Cornell (29%), and WashU (29%) come close--but these figures are very very rare, and they usually go with the schools that interview near or over 1000 applicants each year.

Heres a link to an article indicating that Yale accepted 22% (if I did my math correctly), not 27%. http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=6466. My previous post indicated a college site which is advising its students that acceptance rates from the interview pool can be even lower than that. I'm happy to be wrong, but I certainly didn't make up this 25% number (although I have bought into it). If it's not accurate that's fine.
As for the other point, my experience has been that all people who are interviewed can win themselves a seat, and that you will often seeing the person with lower stats shining and winning the spot, while the higher stat person gets to the waitlist. So clearly the interview is not just a minor factor. At any rate you need to treat the interview like it is the only game in town.

 

[argonana]

I think my figures are probably more recent. I pulled them off of 2006 US News & World Report.

And seriously, I think part of the reason applicants with high stats are waitlisted at some schools is because they're either considered unlikely to matriculate or have deficiencies somewhere else in their apps (e.g. ECs). I'm not denying the importance of the interview, but I really don't think it totally trumps other factors like GPA, LORs, essays, etc.

 

[Law2Doc]

I think my figures are probably more recent. I pulled them off of 2006 US News & World Report.

And seriously, I think part of the reason applicants with high stats are waitlisted at some schools is because they're either considered unlikely to matriculate or have deficiencies somewhere else in their apps (e.g. ECs). I'm not denying the importance of the interview, but I really don't think it totally trumps other factors like GPA, LORs, essays, etc.

I guess your stats could be more recent, but it's hard to phathom that the percentages went up in a year when applications reportedly went up.
As to your later point, it's anecdotal evidence, but I can certainly point to quite a few people I know who got into medical schools due largely to an excellent interview performance, while certainly not being among the higher stats (in either GPA and MCAT) interviewed (actually quite lucky to get an interview at all). I can also point to people with much higher stats who didn't get into those same schools thanks likely to the interview. (I think there are also a couple of people on SDN with high stats who have had many interviews and no acceptances anyplace). I am positive that at least at some places the interview can and does trump other factors in terms of getting in (given that you have already made the cut on those other factors at such places), although any one of those factors can certainly keep you out. Good luck!

 

[Scrub MD]

My interviewer told me that there isn't anything you can do to win yourself a seat but there are many things you can do to keep you out. Not sure exactly what he means or how much it is worth but he said things like a low GPA and MCAT will keep you out but a stellar interview wont get you in if you don;t have the other stats. But then again why would they interview you if you didn't have the stats??

No idea what this is worth though. Anyone heard anything similar?

 

[caffeine37]

thanks for the advice everyone. this has been on my mind, and i knew the advice i would get here would be helpful...what a mysterious process...

so does anyone know what makes a good/great interview? besides the eye contact, firm handshake and answering questions honestly, what exactly sets certain people apart? my impression is that only a few people have excellent interviews, most of them are just about average and somehow it works out based on other factors like someone said (don't they look at the whole file in committee?)

the things I have interviewed for in the past have usually turned out well (scholarships and jobs), but I am really doubting myself after this experience. for one, i felt like this particular interview was one of my best. for two, this particular school seems to accept about half of the people they interview (from their website). i think I may call the school like you all recommended. its killing me, since it was one of my "safeties" (and i liked the school and wanted to go there), and i am about to interview for a "super-reach" in a couple days. I'm feeling pretty unprepared and nervous all of a sudden... this is not looking good.

 

[DarkFark]

thanks for the advice everyone. this has been on my mind, and i knew the advice i would get here would be helpful...what a mysterious process...

so does anyone know what makes a good/great interview? besides the eye contact, firm handshake and answering questions honestly, what exactly sets certain people apart? my impression is that only a few people have excellent interviews, most of them are just about average and somehow it works out based on other factors like someone said (don't they look at the whole file in committee?)

the things I have interviewed for in the past have usually turned out well (scholarships and jobs), but I am really doubting myself after this experience. for one, i felt like this particular interview was one of my best. for two, this particular school seems to accept about half of the people they interview (from their website). i think I may call the school like you all recommended. its killing me, since it was one of my "safeties" (and i liked the school and wanted to go there), and i am about to interview for a "super-reach" in a couple days. I'm feeling pretty unprepared and nervous all of a sudden... this is not looking good.

When I interview, there are three main attributes that I try to project

1) Enthusiasm for medicine and academics
2) Confidence in my abilities
3) Humility regarding my accomplishments

I have found that personally, the interviews I felt have gone best have been the ones where I communicate these values- and so far that has corresponded with my pattern of acceptances.

As far as questions/answers go, the main ones you HAVE to be able to respond to are

1) Why do you want to be a doctor?
2) Why do you want to go here?
3) Tell me about activity ______ (anything you listed in your AMCAS, and hopefully you can relate any of these to medicine).
4) What questions do you have for me? (have at least 3 distinct questions, hopefully at least one non-generic)

At least half of all the words you say in an interview will be answering those questions, so have the answers be like second nature. Obviously there are sometimes policy and ethics questions, or other free respons questions, like "what is the most important quality for a doctor to have?" but if you can sound articulate and engaging on those 4 major questions, then you might be able to get away with mediocre answers on the 'grab bag' questions. Having all good answers is obviously preferable, but I think its more important to just avoid saying something that will offend their values irrevocably and destroy your chances of getting in.

Or, to put it briefly, stick to the safe areas that you know, and spend as little time in the 'minefield' as possible.

Stick to a small set of themes that you think present you best as an applicant, and focus on them- don't make it too complicated. And have confidence that if you can answer at least the most important questions, that you can at least survive almost any interview.

 

[Law2Doc]

My interviewer told me that there isn't anything you can do to win yourself a seat but there are many things you can do to keep you out. Not sure exactly what he means or how much it is worth but he said things like a low GPA and MCAT will keep you out but a stellar interview wont get you in if you don;t have the other stats. But then again why would they interview you if you didn't have the stats??

No idea what this is worth though. Anyone heard anything similar?

I've been told the absolute opposite -- that the low end of the interview group can certainly win themselves a seat, and that the high end stats-wise often don't do enough to impress. I certainly know living proof of both these, although that is perhaps anecdotal. Those who are interviewed have already been screened at most places such that they are "acceptable". Some places go further and treat all the interviewees as equal. believe what you want to believe.

 

[funshine]

I've been told the absolute opposite -- that the low end of the interview group can certainly win themselves a seat, and that the high end stats-wise often don't do enough to impress. I certainly know living proof of both these, although that is perhaps anecdotal. Those who are interviewed have already been screened at most places such that they are "acceptable". Some places go further and treat all the interviewees as equal. believe what you want to believe.

Hmm, so you're saying the applicants who are really impressive on paper often disappoint in person? Do you think this is because they're complacent and think they're shoo-ins, or because more is expected from them in the first place? e.g. Interviewer thinks "This guy graduated from Yale and wrote a hilarious essay. I wonder why he was so quiet today and fumbled some of his answers? How disappointing!" Big red X. Just wondering. I would say both cases happen a lot. It's quite unfortunate though. I am really against interviews being a deciding factor in one's acceptance....it's all about presentation, and rarely reveals anything about the real quality of a person or theirpotential to be a good physician. However, I realize this is the way our society functions.

OP, I'd recommend you really prepare well for the next few interviews. Think ofall the questions and variations thereof they can possibly ask, and pre-package your answers. Presentation is key, and it doesn't end w/ med school admissions. My friend was just telling me the other day that in his clinical rotations, they are not graded on how much they know while treating patients or how well they care ofr the patients, but in the style and confidence when they present to docs.
So best to learn how to do it now. I definitely sympathize though 😳 .

 

[TheMightyAngus]

I am really against interviews being a deciding factor in one's acceptance....it's all about presentation, and rarely reveals anything about the real quality of a person or theirpotential to be a good physician. However, I realize this is the way our society functions.

Since most of medicine is dealing with people, not acing tests, it seems fitting that the face-to-face interview carries more weight. Every job and position in the real world requires an interview. If you can't present the same person you put on paper, too bad.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Hmm, so you're saying the applicants who are really impressive on paper often disappoint in person? Do you think this is because they're complacent and think they're shoo-ins, or because more is expected from them in the first place? e.g. Interviewer thinks "This guy graduated from Yale and wrote a hilarious essay. I wonder why he was so quiet today and fumbled some of his answers? How disappointing!" Big red X. Just wondering. I would say both cases happen a lot. It's quite unfortunate though. I am really against interviews being a deciding factor in one's acceptance....it's all about presentation, and rarely reveals anything about the real quality of a person or theirpotential to be a good physician. However, I realize this is the way our society functions.

As a person who's been on numerous interviews and interviewed people, I agree with this. I've found myself so wrong about how people would function when I made opinions about them based on their interviews. I remember interviewing a person who I thought was just great and would be a fantastic addition to our group -- in reality, she sucked and totally flaked on us. I interviewed someone else who seemed pretty unimpressive but did a fabulous job. Interviews are way too subjective to really tell you anything, and they're just scientific. Personally, I think it would be a mistake for a school to base its ultimate decision solely on your interivew.

Anyway, to the op, you can't always know how other people respond to you, and you're also not privy to how the admissions staff makes decisions. Consequently, you don't know that you're necessarily a poor interviewee or that you need to change anything. You also don't know for sure that your interviewer gave you a low ranking. My main advice to you would be to remain confident, and don't less this one experience throw you.

 

[thegenius]

As a person who's been on numerous interviews and interviewed people, I agree with this. I've found myself so wrong about how people would function when I made opinions about them based on their interviews. I remember interviewing a person who I thought was just great and would be a fantastic addition to our group -- in reality, she sucked and totally flaked on us. I interviewed someone else who seemed pretty unimpressive but did a fabulous job. Interviews are way too subjective to really tell you anything, and they're just scientific. Personally, I think it would be a mistake for a school to base its ultimate decision solely on your interivew.

I think when you interview 800+ candidates and have 25-30 different interviewers, it will be very difficult not to see some sort of regular (bell) shaped curve of interview performances. There will be some that don't do well, some that do quite well, and then about 500-600 people who are all kind of the same. That is, there is nothing distinguishing from those 500+ interviews.

Similar to the poster I'm responding to, I have interviewed about 50 engineers in my life to work at companies I've worked for, and it is difficult to consistently find a formula that will determine whether that particular candidate would fit in our group. In most cases it's hit or miss.

I generally believe that the interview does not carry much weight in determining your probability of becoming accepted at a medical school. There will be outliers in every case, but by enlarge, please imagine what it's like to evaluate 800 students.

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

First, bear in mind that once you get to the interview stage, your stats at most places are meaningless -- i.e. everyone who is interviewed has "made the cut" and has the chance to win or lose a spot. Thus assume everyone who gets interviewed is all you are competing with and forget about the stats/averages (that part is over -- nice job for making that cut, now forget about it and push on). The interview is not merely a formality - it is your chance to win yourself a med school seat...

I disagree with this part of your statement. Your stats may be less relevant (or even ignored) during the actual interview, but it's not as if your GPA and scores are meaningless after you are offered an interview. Further, if the interview is open file, the interviewer sees at least some (depending on school policy) of grades, GPA, and test scores. This can subconsciously or consciously affect the interviewer. For instance, I interviewed a student with a 4.0 and 40+ MCAT -- it made me really curious: how would s/he be as a person -- stiff and nerdy, or nice and relatable? Likewise, when I interviewed someone with a GPA under 3.5, there were definite issues I wanted to clarify during the interview.

After the interview, however, grades and test scores definitely matter. Don't get me wrong, the interview is important -- an outstanding one can help you, and a poor one can keep you from getting in. However, when the applicant gets to the admissions committee, he or she is examined as a whole person -- interview, grades, scores, ECs, research, essays, college/university, LORs, etc.

 

[studentstudent]

so...I'm pretty sure I'm going to be either waitlisted or rejected by a school that I interviewed at in September. most other people on SDN got phone calls already, and I was told by someone in the admissions office that "a letter was sent to me"

I am completely nervous now about the rest of my interviews. I felt like this particular one went well, too. I made the interviewer laugh and I felt as though we got along. My stats are higher than their averages, so I felt like this school was a good bet. I have about 10 other interviews, not all of them have gone as well as that one, and I am now nervous about my chances in general. I'm a nice, non-anti social type...but now I think I don't interview well....

I totally understand what you're feeling. Almost the same thing happened to me at two schools (except I don't have 10 more interviews lined up). In my case "a letter was sent to me" meant waitlist. Just do what some others have suggested, mainly to build your confidence back up, and go back out there again.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

After the interview, however, grades and test scores definitely matter. Don't get me wrong, the interview is important -- an outstanding one can help you, and a poor one can keep you from getting in. However, when the applicant gets to the admissions committee, he or she is examined as a whole person -- interview, grades, scores, ECs, research, essays, college/university, LORs, etc.

I've heard conflicting information from student interviewers at the "elite" med schools regarding grades/scores. According to them, once you reach the interview stage your grades/scores are implicitly considered suitable and you need not worry about them. Rationale being that if the adcom thought they were too low, they wouldn't have granted you an interview in the first place.

 

[Law2Doc]

I've heard conflicting information from student interviewers at the "elite" med schools regarding grades/scores. According to them, once you reach the interview stage your grades/scores are implicitly considered suitable and you need not worry about them. Rationale being that if the adcom thought they were too low, they wouldn't have granted you an interview in the first place.

Yes - I've had places tell me exactly this (and not even necessarilly at "elite" schools).

 

[silas2642]

I think my figures are probably more recent. I pulled them off of 2006 US News & World Report.

And seriously, I think part of the reason applicants with high stats are waitlisted at some schools is because they're either considered unlikely to matriculate or have deficiencies somewhere else in their apps (e.g. ECs). I'm not denying the importance of the interview, but I really don't think it totally trumps other factors like GPA, LORs, essays, etc.

I do. Stats will get you the interview, but after that what they're looking at is YOU. I had a member of an admissions committee tell me that gpa and mcats combined weigh no more than 50% of your application. I think what they're looking for in interviews is, "if my kid were sick, would I want this person to be his/her doctor?" If they didn't think you could do the work or whatever, they probably wouldn't have bothered to interview you.

Now I'm going to contradict myself. Yeah, stats matter; low mcat, low gpa are definitely red flags and if you have these and are interviewing at a given school, you're probably a couple of steps behind everyone else. I'm just saying that they're not everything.

 

[NapeSpikes]

For you people who know probability and statistics, assuming the chance of acceptance at any given interview is 40% or so, how many interviews does someone need to have their probability of getting at least one acceptance >90%, assuming each acceptance is independent of others?

Obviously this is not how it works because in reality it isn't random, but strictly from a statistical point of view, I'd like to know. Thanks.

Oh, and can you explain to this English major how you came up with the answer?

 

[TheMightyAngus]

For you people who know probability and statistics, assuming the chance of acceptance at any given interview is 40% or so, how many interviews does someone need to have their probability of getting at least one acceptance >90%, assuming each acceptance is independent of others?

Obviously this is not how it works because in reality it isn't random, but strictly from a statistical point of view, I'd like to know. Thanks.

Oh, and can you explain to this English major how you came up with the answer?

Given probability of acceptance is 40%, about 5 interviews.

Probability of acceptance = [1 - (prob of not getting acceptance)]
1 interview = [1-(0.6)]= 40%
2 interviews = [1 - (0.6)^2] = 64%
3 interviews = [1 - (0.6)^3] = 78.4%
4 interviews = [1 - (0.6)^4] = 87.0%
5 interviews = [1 - (0.6)^5] = 92.2%

Someone double-check this because it's been awhile since I've had stats.

 

[PhotoMD]

Given probability of acceptance is 40%, about 5 interviews.

Probability of acceptance = [1 - (prob of not getting acceptance)]
1 interview = [1-(0.6)]= 40%
2 interviews = [1 - (0.6)^2] = 64%
3 interviews = [1 - (0.6)^3] = 78.4%
4 interviews = [1 - (0.6)^4] = 87.0%
5 interviews = [1 - (0.6)^5] = 92.2%

Someone double-check this because it's been awhile since I've had stats.

Your math is quite right, as you are saying the probability of acceptance is the probability of getting rejected from A AND B AND C AND D AND E. You are making two related fatal assumptions.

(1) That admissions is 100% random, or at least...
(2) That the event of getting rejected from school x is independent from getting rejected from school y. Presumably, school x found you not worthy, so school y is more likely to find the same. Thus, y's outcome is dependent on x, which means you can't use the multiplication rule as applied above.

Yes, I'm a huge geek.

 

[einnewt]

No -I'm pretty sure that 25% was accurate (although some schools may accept half. I'll try and find where I came up with this percentage (may have been a Kaplan or TPR publication). But a quick look on the web shows that Amherst college is telling its premeds that schools tend to accept 10-40% from the interview pool.
See eg.
http://www.amherst.edu/~sageorge/guide2d.html

I don't quite understand how you can be "pretty sure" about a statisitic for which you are decidedly unsure about the source. To me, a statistic (as opposed to an idea which can be verified by logic and argument) is only as good as its source (everybody can make up a statisitc if it serves their purpose though I am not saying you are doing this). You are, in fact, wrong, and it is just under 50% of interviewees who are admitted (on average) to any given school (source: U.S. News and World Report which relies on the self-reported statistics of schools so take it for what it's worth).

 

[NapeSpikes]

Your math is quite right, as you are saying the probability of acceptance is the probability of getting rejected from A AND B AND C AND D AND E. You are making two related fatal assumptions.

(1) That admissions is 100% random, or at least...
(2) That the event of getting rejected from school x is independent from getting rejected from school y. Presumably, school x found you not worthy, so school y is more likely to find the same. Thus, y's outcome is dependent on x, which means you can't use the multiplication rule as applied above.

Yes, I'm a huge geek.

Yes, we already stipulated these (see my previous post). I just wanted to know how to do the problem. 👍

 

[Risa]

There will be outliers in every case, but by enlarge, please imagine what it's like to evaluate 800 students.

FYI "by enlarge" is actually "by and large."

I love how often these kinds of things happen with English. One of mine was that for the longest time, I thought that "for all intents and purposes" was "for all intensive purposes." Whoops!

 

[PhotoMD]

Yes, we already stipulated these (see my previous post). I just wanted to know how to do the problem. 👍

Oh. My bad.

 

[funshine]

FYI "by enlarge" is actually "by and large."

I love how often these kinds of things happen with English. One of mine was that for the longest time, I thought that "for all intents and purposes" was "for all intensive purposes." Whoops!

😱 I thought "intensive purposes" existed too! Wow, hope I never used that in a paper.

 

[argonana]

😱 I thought "intensive purposes" existed too!

😀 You were right...I think "intensive purposes" is the correct phrase.

 

[Mutt]

😀 You were right...I think "intensive purposes" is the correct phrase.

I think it's possible. What if your purpose were truly intents (or, is it intense?) 😛

 

[chef_NU]

OK so anyway I went to a party with a bunch of med students this last weekend and basically spent the whole time talking to this guy who was an M4 who has a lot of experience interviewing people and stuff. I think he was being pretty truthful with me because we had both had a bunch of beers and were taking Maker's Mark shots like every 15 minutes during the discussion. Anyway, he said that basically in an interview they want to make sure of two things:

1. You're not socially inept or psycho.
2. You can handle yourself when exposed to stress in a social situation.

Don't try to "wow" the interviewer's with your unique life philosophy or try to make yourself "memorable" by exposing your weird and possibly controversial personal quirks. He basically said just try to anticipate any questions that you might get and demonstrate that you've thought through them. I thought this helped clear up a lot of things. Anyway, my $0.02.

 

[argonana]

OK so anyway I went to a party with a bunch of med students this last weekend and basically spent the whole time talking to this guy who was an M4 who has a lot of experience interviewing people and stuff. I think he was being pretty truthful with me because we had both had a bunch of beers and were taking Maker's Mark shots like every 15 minutes during the discussion. Anyway, he said that basically in an interview they want to make sure of two things:

1. You're not socially inept or psycho.
2. You can handle yourself when exposed to stress in a social situation.

Don't try to "wow" the interviewer's with your unique life philosophy or try to make yourself "memorable" by exposing your weird and possibly controversial personal quirks. He basically said just try to anticipate any questions that you might get and demonstrate that you've thought through them. I thought this helped clear up a lot of things. Anyway, my $0.02.

👍 This is exactly what our tour guides at USC Keck said.

Like everyone has said, the interview can hurt you if you foul it up, but it probably won't get you in unless it's absolutely amazing.

P.S. To the OP--PLEASE don't let one school's decision discourage you. Each school really does look for something different. Strive to do your best in interviews, of course, but try to shrug this stuff off---you'll hear good news soon enough.

Also, getting waitlisted at a "safety" school definitely doesn't mean you're out of the running for admission at more competitive schools. For instance, a bunch of us were placed on hold pre-interview at GW but later received interview invitations and acceptances from higher-ranked schools. So don't worry too much...

 

[Scoot]

FYI "by enlarge" is actually "by and large."

I love how often these kinds of things happen with English. One of mine was that for the longest time, I thought that "for all intents and purposes" was "for all intensive purposes." Whoops!

HA! I did the exact same thing for years, and I don't even know if anyone ever knew since I don't think I ever wrote it down, oh yeah, and I'm from the south where we slur all our words anyway.

 

[caffeine37]

I finally got in contact with the school, and I was told by one of the admissions staff that "everything looks great" and "I'm really not sure why we didn't accept you". 😕 They said I had positive interview writeups and everything. I guess I may never know what happened. Unfortunately, I can't appeal the decision but they were encouraging that there wasn't anything wrong with my personality. I guess its just a mysterious process sometimes. I've realized that a post-interview rejection is the biggest possible blow to one's ego...I really took this personally...so for that reason I wanted to thank you all for your kind words (and even some encouraging PMs). This has been a very stressful experience and I appreciate the support.