Interview Performance vs. Outcome

[WhiteRussian]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

How much do interviews really matter? I mean granted you dont completely blow it do they really make a difference? I personally felt that i did better on some interviews than others, but it didnt really correlate to my actual outcomes (getting rejected at the place where i though i interviewed best and getting accepted to places where i thought i did alright). I feel like everyone probably does reasonably well and the interviewer writes a little generic note that gets added to the big file (although i've never actually seen anyone else being interviewed). How much can people actually distinguish themselves in an interview?

I've also noticed that sometimes the interviewer will already have a strong opinion about you from reading your file it doesnt really matter what you say. A few times an interviewer would go into recruiting mode after 10 minutes, and this other time the interviewer seriously had it in for me for some reason. It just seems like how "well" you do on an interview doesnt really matter, the rest of your file is much more important

 

[nycli]

Apparently that's the way it is. One of my interviewers flat out told me that these things are meant to weed out any potential psychopaths and then just pointed out to me what he thought my strengths and weaknesses would be in adcomm reviews. I addressed some points about my application but I got the feeling that he was more interested in selling the school than feeling out my personality.

 

[Risa]

Just had to comment since I noticed in your mdapps that you're referring to Yale.

I keep seeing people talking about it in various threads: I think this was practically a universal experience... EVERYONE and their mom had amazing interviews there, so the quality of the interview wound up having zero predictive value.

So, flag to next year's applicants: everyone has great interviews at Yale!

PS Yale aside, I totally know what you mean. I was accepted at the school I had my worst interview at... so you really never know.

 

[MissMD'10]

I think interview performance and outcomes are only slightly correlated. I was accepted with a bad interview (I thought) and waitlisted with a fantastic one! So I think that the people who interview may or may not have a lot of power with the adcomm at different schools. And this process showed me that how I feel I may be coming across to others can be completely wrong!

I also agree with nycli about the weeding out the psychopaths. An interviewer told me basically the same thing, and that they were trying to find the "best fit" students during the interview. I think part of the outcome depends on whether they think you will fit in and why you want to go to that particular school.

 

[DarkFark]

I think I know where you're coming from. I had one outright post-interview rejection (from Georgetown) and it surprised me because I thought the interview went pretty well. The interviewer really tried to grill me, but I didn't get flustered and thought I held up alright. Although, I did think the guy was kind of a jerk- he seemed to ask questions that completely unnessecary- as in, I had already answered them if he had actually been listening. Example:

Int: Why do you want to be a doctor?

Me: I'm looking for a purposeful challenge in my life, and I'm a very scientifically minded person. I find the idea of using scientific thought to heal a person to be inherently elegant.

Int: So why wouldn't you want to be a social worker?

Me: I'm a very scientifically minded person. I find the idea of using scientific thought to heal a person to be inherently elegant.


Maybe he found my repetition to be a bit trite, but in all seriosuness, what the heck was I supposed to do? I had already spelled out my reason for why-not-social-worker and he asked me anyways. Maybe the dude just had it in for me.

Anyways, the whole interview was basically a half hour of this- the interviewer trying to be needlessly difficult. And I didn't budge an inch, or get (visibly)annoyed, but it didn't matter. I have no idea.

 

[BDiesel]

..

 

[crazy_cavalier]

I think I know where you're coming from. I had one outright post-interview rejection (from Georgetown) and it surprised me because I thought the interview went pretty well. The interviewer really tried to grill me, but I didn't get flustered and thought I held up alright. Although, I did think the guy was kind of a jerk- he seemed to ask questions that completely unnessecary- as in, I had already answered them if he had actually been listening. Example:

Int: Why do you want to be a doctor?

Me: I'm looking for a purposeful challenge in my life, and I'm a very scientifically minded person. I find the idea of using scientific thought to heal a person to be inherently elegant.

Int: So why wouldn't you want to be a social worker?

Me: I'm a very scientifically minded person. I find the idea of using scientific thought to heal a person to be inherently elegant.


Maybe he found my repetition to be a bit trite, but in all seriosuness, what the heck was I supposed to do? I had already spelled out my reason for why-not-social-worker and he asked me anyways. Maybe the dude just had it in for me.

Anyways, the whole interview was basically a half hour of this- the interviewer trying to be needlessly difficult. And I didn't budge an inch, or get (visibly)annoyed, but it didn't matter. I have no idea.

He was probably sick of the typical response to his question (ie. why a doctor, why not social worker, etc). I'd wager that had you said something a little more unusual or perhaps witty, you'd have gotten in. Example:

Int: Why do you want to be a doctor?

You: I like puzzles / challenges. The greatest puzzle of all is how stupid people can be and why some people go to the ER, and the greatest challenge of all is how to keep myself from losing my mind when dealing with obnoxious patients.

Int: So why wouldn't you want to be a social worker?

You: Because I'm not a smelly hippie.

Int: LMAO! Liberals suck lolol.

You: Fo' sho.


I'm about 99% sure that the dialogue above is very feasible and would have been successful for edging you into admission at Georgetown. 👍

 

[Depakote]

I've had some great interviews and been totally shot down.

So, it's hard to say. I think the interviewer can like you and still be overruled in committee.

 

[crazy_cavalier]

Oh, and also, for the OP: the worse you think you did in the interview, the better your chances are in reality. When you walk away from an interview you felt great about, the reality is you were probably oblivious to the mistakes you made (i.e. bad eye contact, bad responses, inability to pay attention to your interviewer or pick up his/her cues, etc.) However, when you think you did terrible in your interview you walk away thinking about all the mistakes you did make... usually you wind up obsessing over maybe one or two little dumb things you did, but the reality is the rest was great.

That's how it's turned out for me at any rate...

 

[moinmoin]

My good interviews, bad interviews, and so-so interviews have placed me on lots of waitlists...

 

[Saluki]

1 bad interview/1 good interview at Mayo=waitlist
Bad interview at Vanderbilt=acceptance
Fantastic interview at Duke=waitlist
1 good/1 so-so interview at Cleveland Clinic=acceptance
So-so interview at Columbia=Waitlist
Good interview at Wash U=waitlist
Bad interview at UAMS=acceptance
Bad interview at Ohio State=acceptance

My general conclusion is that what your adcom members ate for lunch has a lot more influence on the admissions decisions than your performance at your interview, unless you turn out to be a total weirdo...

 

[nosugrefneb]

I think it largely depends on the school and how they structure their admissions process. Some will interview very few people based on who they like on paper and consequently will accept most people they invite to interview. In effect, this is more of a screen for crazy folks, and basically they just want to make sure you're normal and can carry a conversation. If you have a "bad" interview at one of these schools, it probably will be relatively inconsequential since they already like you enough to have invited you in the first place. On the other hand, schools that interview hundreds and hundreds of people for maybe a hundred spots probably weight their interviews very differently than above, so a "bad" interview at one of these places probably hurts your chances a lot more. I think it's mostly a function of the specific schools in question (and not as much a function of what the adcom ate for lunch!).

 

[WhiteRussian]

Oh, and also, for the OP: the worse you think you did in the interview, the better your chances are in reality. When you walk away from an interview you felt great about, the reality is you were probably oblivious to the mistakes you made (i.e. bad eye contact, bad responses, inability to pay attention to your interviewer or pick up his/her cues, etc.) However, when you think you did terrible in your interview you walk away thinking about all the mistakes you did make... usually you wind up obsessing over maybe one or two little dumb things you did, but the reality is the rest was great.

That's how it's turned out for me at any rate...

While that's true to some extent, and even though i have no proof, I feel like you can tell for the most part how well you did. I mean, sometimes when you just click with the interviewer, go on extended tangents, they seem really interested and are continually agree with you, etc.. then you would probably justified in concluding that it went 'well' And compare that with times when the interviewer has to keep changing topics, seems to lose interest, and where you get distracted and lose your train of thought, etc.

But I do agree that it probably depends a lot at schools admission process, and probably the mood of the individual interviewer.

 

[Law2Doc]

While that's true to some extent, and even though i have no proof, I feel like you can tell for the most part how well you did.

I strongly feel that interview success and outcome are pretty significantly correlated, at least at some school -- I know quite a few folks who had moderate stats who got themselves in past stronger-on-paper candidates thanks to a solid interview (they were subsequently told).
However I don't think there is a great correlation between HOW YOU THINK you interview and outcome. I've met many folks who are pretty bad conversationalists who are somehow convinced they have good interviews. I've also met interviewers who are totally unreadable (both in the med school game and in the employment world) -- some who seem to hit it off with all interviewees but don't actually, or others who seem brusque and uninterested but actually are liking the applicant -- it's hard for most, especially someone without much interview experience outside of the process, to read through the different styles.
So my theory is yes there is a correlation, but you will only really know it after the outcome is in and you run into the interviewer at the school you ultimately matriculate at. Do not treat it as merely a formality, and if you think you might be weak at this part of the process, find someone to practice with. Good luck.

 

[mellifluous]

It seemed like my really thorough (>1hr) interviews helped me gain acceptance to schools where I really had no idea if I even had a chance. I really loved these interviews because they were more conversational and engaging; I could talk about things on my app in greater detail, clear up any confusion, and discuss my background. I could ask questions and I felt that my interviewer got to know me as a person and not just as a med school applicant. They were actually pretty fun. I am convinced that one interviewer at a certain school knows everything about me since birth. Maybe schools that offer more than one interview and allot more time for them, weigh the outcome of the interview more? Just a thought...