Interview importance

[drzing]

---

Members do not see this ad.

What schools put mroe emphasis on the interview than on other stats?

 

[armybound]

We'd really know this?

 

[J ROD]

To me, it is a big part. If you have the numbers (MCAT & GPA), this is the part where they get to know you as a "person".

It is the icing on the cake. It definitely can be a deal maker or breaker.

MCAT, GPA, Clinical Volunteering, LORs, and Interview are the major components to me. 4 of them are on paper, only 1 is in person.

It's important!

As far as what schools, I would think most schools value it right behind MCAT and GPA.

 

[CoolWhipp]

No one knows. Most important thing is stats otherwise you won't get an interview.

 

[halekulani]

my theory is that they (the committee) have a pre-conceived idea of where they rank you (waitlist vs. accept)

the interviewer reports back to them and most of the time they stick with their decision unless you have a. incredible interview or b. terrible interview which sways them one way or another or even a rejection.

 

[CoolWhipp]

my theory is that they (the committee) have a pre-conceived idea of where they rank you (waitlist vs. accept)

the interviewer reports back to them and most of the time they stick with their decision unless you have a. incredible interview or b. terrible interview which sways them one way or another or even a rejection.

I agree. When you are looking at hundreds of applicants you already have, or begin to have, an idea of what you are looking for.

 

[bowlin123]

But I don't understand why there are some people who did great during interviews but still result in rejections.

 

[CoolWhipp]

But I don't understand why there are some people who did great during interviews but still result in rejections.

Great is relative.

 

[brooklynblunder]

its still a committee decision/point based system and whatnot

 

[quiltlady]

Because one's perception of one's performance may not be accurate. Even if you were great, someone else must have been better.

 

[bowlin123]

Because one's perception of one's performance may not be accurate. Even if you were great, someone else must have been better.

I understand your viewpoint; however, there were cases where interviewers pretty much assure the interviewees that he/she did great and would definitely be accepted, but weeks later either that person is rejected or waitlisted. So how can that be explained? I went to an interview where a physician barely spoke English and offered me chocolate and killed one hour of allotted interview time. I thought I was almost certainly going to be accepted, but because he didn't take notes during the interview (other interviewers that day did) and I assume he did not act as my champion which results in my rejection later on.

 

[brooklynblunder]

your interviewer should be able to convince the committee that you should be accepted for x y z reasons? its not up to him solely

 

[halekulani]

But I don't understand why there are some people who did great during interviews but still result in rejections.

probably waitlisted in worst case scenario

they won't reject you unless you were ******ed in your interview.

 

[BlueElmo]

Just try to pull out a great interview, or as well as you can, and hope for the best.

 

[redlight]

on top of that, some interviewers rank students. if rank gets factored into a point system, it can be easy to see how a decent performance could still not be enough to get accepted.