Interview Dates and acceptance rates

[SuperSlim]

X school has acceptance rate of 50% post interview. The percentage of post interview acceptances is higher earlier on say September October, then decreases as months go on?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Earlier is generally better and beyond that it's not worth worrying about.

 

[musicalfeet]

I wonder about this too...

because if you think about it, if that were true, it doesn't really make sense. At one of my interviews, they specifically state they DON'T do that because it's not fair to the later interviewees (even though they invite their 'highest ranked' first), and they are waiting for some of the superstars who may have only shot for the Top 20 who realize they might need some backup options and end up applying.

Also, when I asked around, it seemed like a sizeable percentage of the students I asked either interviewed later, or were waitlisted and got in through the waitlist. I have yet to meet a med student around on interview day that got in when they interviewed early + early acceptance too.

 

[efle]

This would be greatly confounded by the fact that more attractive candidates get earlier invites.

 

[sharkbyte]

I wonder about this too...

because if you think about it, if that were true, it doesn't really make sense. At one of my interviews, they specifically state they DON'T do that because it's not fair to the later interviewees (even though they invite their 'highest ranked' first), and they are waiting for some of the superstars who may have only shot for the Top 20 who realize they might need some backup options and end up applying.

Also, when I asked around, it seemed like a sizeable percentage of the students I asked either interviewed later, or were waitlisted and got in through the waitlist. I have yet to meet a med student around on interview day that got in when they interviewed early + early acceptance too.

Doesn't it make some sense, though, that when the committee is considering the first few batches of interviewees, they haven't given out any acceptances yet so they can probably be a bit more liberal? Once you get to the later batches there are fewer open spots to deal with. That's just my assumption, I could be wrong. I feel like if there is an advantage, it wouldn't be more than a few percentage points (i.e. if it's 50% overall it definitely wouldn't be, say, a 70/30 split or even 60/40).

 

[piii]

Also, when I asked around, it seemed like a sizeable percentage of the students I asked either interviewed later, or were waitlisted and got in through the waitlist. I have yet to meet a med student around on interview day that got in when they interviewed early + early acceptance too.

I think this is biased towards which school you are at at the time. A lot of applicants that have multiple choices may choose a cheaper school with better location over another, for example. Applicants that interview earlier may be slightly better(?) and therefore have more acceptances.

 

[Spector1]

I too wonder this. for cnucom it definitely seemed that way but maybe they were an exception since their admission cycle was so rushed.

 

[gmbz]

Many adcom's have chimed in on this in multiple threads.

It seems that the general consensus is as follows,

Being looked at early IS more beneficial than later. The logic here is that they are not "burnt out" from applications and there are more seats open thus more leniency.

However some schools hold more spaces for later in the cycle, I think @LizzyM spoke about some percentages and it would appear that they vary widely based on institutions. Some schools I have heard will fill there class as soon as they get candidate's that "fit well". This method it seems would benefit being looked at sooner than later.

 

[Munty]

The last school I interviewed at said the following:

If for example we have 10 interview days, after each interview day we meet and accept 1/10th the number of seats we have. Those that didn't make the cut are put back in the pool to be reconsidered next time we meet. Thus if you are one of the first people interviewed, we will consider you 10 times to fill a seat, if you get one of the last days, we may only review your application once or twice. As a result it is in your best interest to interview here as early as possible.

But they also said this is just for their school specifically. It will vary between committees. I have found on my interview trail that each school does everything slightly differently, and it is a little maddening.

 

[gmbz]

A lot of schools utilize a post-interview numerical system. Certain paint thresholds are set and if you meet them you are accepted,ect.. So the interview is weighted and scored and then your LOR's and EC's and stats all get percentages of weight and then you get a final score.

Now some schools will weigh the interview extremely heavy, and others less heavy. This is where the gray area exists.

 

[Affiche]

At my last interview they said that turn around time for decisions can be anywhere from 2 weeks to a few months. Those that hear back after a few months are the applicants who the committee couldn't agree on, so they throw them in a pile and "sleep on it" for a month and then reevaluate. At the end of the cycle, those applicants are more likely to get wailisted or rejected right away because the class is almost full and there isn't as much time to sleep on decisions.

 

[LizzyM]

There is also the situation similar to my staircase analogy.... A school knows that they will accept 50% of the applicants who are interviewed and they know that anyone who finishes the interview and lands on stair 1 or 2 will be in the top 50% regardless of how the other interviewees perform. So, those applicants get offers as quickly as possible (except at schools that hold all offers until late Winter) while more time is needed to see how the middle of the pack is going to shake out. Someone who looks like "top 50%" on Day One may end up at the 45th percentile by the end of the cycle and thus be waitlisted. Making offers to acceptable candidates early in the season may mean passing on better applicants who for whatever reason are interviewed later in the season. That does not make sense if you are attempting to assemble "the best" class. Therefore, schools will generally hold back and "waitlist" or make no decision on some applicants who interview early only to use the waitlist or make a decision in the late winter/early spring.

 

[gmbz]

@LizzyM So multiple different strategies employed by different institutions. Do these different committees get together at conference's to share their systems and how they feel one is "better". Or is this really a preference by the Dean? Or perhaps the School?

 

[Doug Underhill]

According to AAMC Table 45, interview dates for August and September have a 72% acceptance rate. For October and November, that acceptance rate drops precipitously to 26%, and after that, only 4%.

I'm just kidding. Don't try to quantify it like this.

 

[Munty]

According to AAMC Table 45, interview dates for August and September have a 72% acceptance rate. For October and November, that acceptance rate drops precipitously to 26%, and after that, only 4%.

I'm just kidding. Don't try to quantify it like this.

Where is this table? Do you have a link? I checked their website and could only find up to table 43 (with these high numbers dealing with only the residency application process).

 

[Ochemphd]

Where is this table? Do you have a link? I checked their website and could only find up to table 43 (with these high numbers dealing with only the residency application process).

Read the whole message you replied to

 

[Pastamahn]

What could be said about schools with non-rolling admissions in regards to interview date?

 

[Markymark15]

Unless the class is mostly filled, the time of your interview has no bearing on your acceptance chances. I interviewed in February btw. And I did not get in to those schools in which I interviewed in September.

 

[Munty]

Read the whole message you replied to

D'oh. Sorry haha, I got excited for new delicious data points and must have skimmed over that last bit. My apologies.