Interview after March 15?

[chaim123]

A friend of mine mentioned that he has two interviews in the next two weeks at MD schools. Based on AAMC traffic rules, would I be correct in assuming that these have to been for waitlist spots, since schools should have already made enough acceptances to fill their class by now.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Asagiri]

If school X has 120 seats, they must give 120 acceptances by March 15. Schools do not have 100% yields, so they will likely give more than 120 acceptances. Your friend is not necessarily interviewing for a waiting list spot.

 

[7331poas]

If school X has 120 seats, they must give 120 acceptances by March 15. Schools do not have 100% yields, so they will likely give more than 120 acceptances. Your friend is not necessarily interviewing for a waiting list spot.

That is bad logic. Some schools may have given out 180 acceptances for 120 seats on March 15th.

 

[Asagiri]

That is bad logic. Some schools may have given out 180 acceptances for 120 seats on March 15th.

Did not say they could not give more. The traffic rule indicates a minimum, which is what is being discussed here.

 

[chaim123]

Did not say they could not give more. The traffic rule indicates a minimum, which is what is being discussed here.

I know what the traffic rules indicate. But a majority of medical schools have also offered more than enough spots for their class by now. So I was more looking to see if adcoms know, in practice, how this is applied.

 

[7331poas]

Did not say they could not give more. The traffic rule indicates a minimum, which is what is being discussed here.

Sure...it does indicate a minimum. But my amateur opinion leads me to believe that most schools are above the minimum at this point.

 

[Asagiri]

I know what the traffic rules indicate. But a majority of medical schools have also offered more than enough spots for their class by now. So I was more looking to see if adcoms know, in practice, how this is applied.

Sure...it does indicate a minimum. But my amateur opinion leads me to believe that most schools are above the minimum at this point.

Not sure if I'm being misunderstood. Sure, schools could have offered more acceptances. Nothing stopping them.

The answer to the OP's original question:

A friend of mine mentioned that he has two interviews in the next two weeks at MD schools. Based on AAMC traffic rules, would I be correct in assuming that these have to been for waitlist spots, since schools should have already made enough acceptances to fill their class by now.

No, this is not a correct assumption.

In other words, the March 15th traffic rule does not imply that later interviews would be for the waiting list.

 

[efle]

I don't think there is such a thing as interviewing for the waitlist. If you kill it at the interview and they want to admit you, they will admit you, and that will eventually be offset by one less waitlist offer going out when those start up in May. All schools that are still interviewing will still have this buffer set up right now. It would be very self defeating for them to offer so many early admits that they can only waitlist candidates they want while their cycle is still going.

Now it might be true that more people get waitlisted at the tail end of the cycle, but that's because of the LizzyM staircase analogy: the cohort that barely snagged an interview in the last passes through the app stack is on average going to be further from the admit threshold. That might be a legit concern. Worrying about the school already sending so many admits that they have to waitlist everyone they like, not so much.

 

[MDhopeful324]

Now it might be true that more people get waitlisted at the tail end of the cycle, but that's because of the LizzyM staircase analogy: the cohort that barely snagged an interview in the last passes through the app stack is on average going to be further from the admit threshold. That might be a legit concern. Worrying about the school already sending so many admits that they have to waitlist everyone they like, not so much.

This.

Two other factors you should consider are when your friend's app was marked complete as well as if the school he applied to has a regional bias.
With the former, your app may (not always) be reviewed later and thus you'll receive an interview invite later in the cycle. Many institutions give out invites months in advance, so you may receive something in December for March. With the latter, the school may sometimes give out II to those they believe will most probably take advantage of their offer (i.e hometown, IS tuition, more likely to practice in that area etc).

I wouldn't worry. He should go to the interview if he has a genuine interest in the schools.

 

[chaim123]

I don't think there is such a thing as interviewing for the waitlist. If you kill it at the interview and they want to admit you, they will admit you, and that will eventually be offset by one less waitlist offer going out when those start up in May. All schools that are still interviewing will still have this buffer set up right now. It would be very self defeating for them to offer so many early admits that they can only waitlist candidates they want while their cycle is still going.

Now it might be true that more people get waitlisted at the tail end of the cycle, but that's because of the LizzyM staircase analogy: the cohort that barely snagged an interview in the last passes through the app stack is on average going to be further from the admit threshold. That might be a legit concern. Worrying about the school already sending so many admits that they have to waitlist everyone they like, not so much.

There are schools that tell you in the invite email that you are interviewing for the waitlist. Mount Sinai is one of them I believe.