interview theory

[majik1213]

---

Members do not see this ad.

We've all heard of the story where an applicants says, "My interview was so good, so wth am I rejected?" and also the other who goes, "Wow that interviewed SUCKED, and somehow I got in .. maybe they sent the acceptance to the wrong person?"

So what's going on? I propose the following: In a really good interview -- the kind where you just shoot the **** for 30 minutes or get complimented on your MCAT, your GPA, your credentials, etc. -- in such interviews, have you really left a mark on the interviewer? I feel that the comments the interviewer writes are going to reflect little more than what you already talked about .. your own application.

In a stress interview -- the kind where you have to ask questions about the campus, where you're asked about the challenges of health care, or how you rectified an instance of unprofessional behavior (Drexel asked me that crazy one) -- those interviews leave the interviewer with a great deal of material to discuss when writing a review that won't appear on your application. If you find you get in, then the following case MAY hold: You got in because the unique information the interviewer acquired added enough material to your application to get you in the acceptance berth.

Such is my conjecture, I suppose, which I write out of incredible boredom as I await my decision from Drexel 🙁.

 

[VQuick]

One misconception IMO is that once you get an interview, the interview is most important. The interview is a small portion of your entire application. I would guess that most people's interviews go just fine--they don't leave an amazing impression on the interviewer but they don't bomb either. At the final adcom review of your application, I would bet that most schools still care more about your numbers and experiences than your interview. The interview process as I understand it weeds out people with attitude problems and similar issues. Of course, if you do have an amazing interview that can put you on top of the pile, but otherwise it's a mistake to think that a good interview will get you in---remember, most schools interview far more than they will accept.

 

[majik1213]

that's a great point! And you're right, the interview definitely isn't the most important thing .. I should've made that clear.

 

[1956Goldtop]

Also, its likely that schools bring some students in for interviews that they will only accept with an amazing interview, and others that they will just take with a so-so interview based on what is already down on paper.

 

[LikeClockWork]

I often wonder if people have good or even great interviews, but the adcoms see it as "Nice enough guy, but it doesn't make up for the 27 MCAT and/or 3.0 GPA." If the candidate had blown both interviewers away, they may have earned an acceptance. However, just having a good rapport with 2 or 3 of the committee members wasn't enough.

Just my $0.02.

Edit: Goldtop beat me to it!

 

[SketchLazy]

We've all heard of the story where an applicants says, "My interview was so good, so wth am I rejected?" and also the other who goes, "Wow that interviewed SUCKED, and somehow I got in .. maybe they sent the acceptance to the wrong person?"

So what's going on? I propose the following: In a really good interview -- the kind where you just shoot the **** for 30 minutes or get complimented on your MCAT, your GPA, your credentials, etc. -- in such interviews, have you really left a mark on the interviewer? I feel that the comments the interviewer writes are going to reflect little more than what you already talked about .. your own application.

In a stress interview -- the kind where you have to ask questions about the campus, where you're asked about the challenges of health care, or how you rectified an instance of unprofessional behavior (Drexel asked me that crazy one) -- those interviews leave the interviewer with a great deal of material to discuss when writing a review that won't appear on your application. If you find you get in, then the following case MAY hold: You got in because the unique information the interviewer acquired added enough material to your application to get you in the acceptance berth.

Such is my conjecture, I suppose, which I write out of incredible boredom as I await my decision from Drexel 🙁.

With enough concensus, I think your theory should be proposed as law. We'll call it the 2nd law of interviews. The 1st being that getting one is a crapshoot.

 

[Bond8204]

I often wonder if people have good or even great interviews, but the adcoms see it as "Nice enough guy, but it doesn't make up for the 27 MCAT and/or 3.0 GPA." If the candidate had blown both interviewers away, they may have earned an acceptance. However, just having a good rapport with 2 or 3 of the committee members wasn't enough.

Just my $0.02.

Edit: Goldtop beat me to it!

See, but this is bull**** too. Define an amazing interview. Would you say the interview ending "It was a pleasure to meet you, I have no doubt you'll be getting an acceptance letter soon" an amazing interview? How about the interviewer laughing to a friend of mine "How can I get my son to be more like you!?" Because people have posted on here and I've had friends whose interviewers have said this, they've been waitlisted, and when they contacted the interviewers, the interviewers were totally shocked to find this out--and say they had written rave reviews of the person--apparently to no avail. (Note: I think reading into this as if the interviewer was doing this as a "test" is too much. These interviewers, from the stories I've been told, were truly impressed and enthusiastic about these applicants).

The interview is a small portion of your entire application.

The interview process as I understand it weeds out people with attitude problems and similar issues.

I'd say this is much, much more accurate. Most interviews are looking for you not to screw up. For schools that interview tons of people, it's really a crapshoot about who you get and what kind of mood they're in when they talk to you (are they in the mood to listen to you).

Then again, I am just bitter about the whole process. My stats and activities have gotten me invited to interviews, I've done great in them, and (most likely due to the institutional action section of my application) it hasn't mattered a wink.

 

[DrBowtie]

I think in general, people just overestimate how they did in the interview.

 

[dizzyorange]

Crapshoot is exactly the word here.

I do think that the Brand Name schools tend to weight the interview more heavily. One admissions officer told me that, and it seems to make sense since they can pretty much fill up their class with 3.8+ / 36+ applicants.

 

[Bond8204]

I think in general, people just overestimate how they did in the interview.

Again, this is bull. It's so hard to really screw up an interview--there are so many "right" answers to typical interview questions. If an interviewer believes a given opinion is better than another, I don't really know that that's fair. As I said above, I really feel it's up to you not to screw up an interview, and rely on the rest of your application for acceptance. As I alluded to, and has been discussed before on this site, I think there's a big gap oftentimes between those who do the interviewing and those who sit down on and adcommittee to determine acceptance.

 

[DrBowtie]

Again, this is bull. It's so hard to really screw up an interview--there are so many "right" answers to typical interview questions. If an interviewer believes a given opinion is better than another, I don't really know that that's fair. As I said above, I really feel it's up to you not to screw up an interview, and rely on the rest of your application for acceptance. As I alluded to, and has been discussed before on this site, I think there's a big gap oftentimes between those who do the interviewing and those who sit down on and adcommittee to determine acceptance.

Not bull. I'd estimate like 80% of interviews are mediocre and in general fine. 10% really shine and 10% really suck. I think people think they are in the top 10% more than they are.

 

[Bond8204]

Not bull. I'd estimate like 80% of interviews are mediocre and in general fine. 10% really shine and 10% really suck. I think people think they are in the top 10% more than they are.

Have you been interviewing premeds for some school as an EC?

 

[DrBowtie]

Have you been interviewing premeds for some school as an EC?

No, but I can speculate just as much as you 😉

 

[nevercold]

I interview for my med school and I will respond to a few of your thoughts shortly.

 

[Bond8204]

No, but I can speculate just as much as you 😉

🙂. But quite a bit of my argument isn't based on speculation. This is (admittedly subjective and not exactly statistical) actual stories of friends and people who post on SDN (and one story of my own) where interviewers have been very enthusiastic about candidates but end up on a waitlist.

Note that it's not just the interviewee saying "I really nailed that interview." It's the interviewer saying something along the lines of "I don't see why I shouldn't tell you you'll be admitted--congratulations." or, like I said above, another friend of mine (who also had excellent stats and activities by the way at a great school...the only thing I can possibily think of is that he was out of state for this private school) who was told "How can I get my son to be more like you?!"

Overall I think my point stands. Your interview is only a small portion of your application because there's oftentimes a large gap between the interview and the committee meeting (i.e. that interviewer sometimes isn't there arguing his case for your--it's often just an evaluation sheet). My point, then, is you could really shine in an interview (getting one of the responses I've talked about above) and not get accepted.

 

[Bond8204]

I interview for my med school and I will respond to a few of your thoughts shortly.

I look forward to your point of view.

I should also bring up that I know an MS3 who used to work in my lab. When asking him about interviews he said he had sat in on many as a med student and that of all of them only one ever got a negative review--someone who started talking about way more than they knew about on a healthcare question. Otherwise, he said, those conversational type interviews have always earned a recommendation on his committees.

 

[DrBowtie]

I look forward to your point of view.

I should also bring up that I know an MS3 who used to work in my lab. When asking him about interviews he said he had sat in on many as a med student and that of all of them only one ever got a negative review--someone who started talking about way more than they knew about on a healthcare question. Otherwise, he said, those conversational type interviews have always earned a recommendation on his committees.

Doesn't this go with my point that almost all of the interviews are pretty much good and few are really bad or really good?

 

[dizzyorange]

I think another issue is the reputation of your interviewer among the Admissions Committee. If an interviewer submits one glowing recommendation after another, I think a cry-wolf effect occurs. On the other hand, a usually neutral interviewer who suddenly submits high praise will probably be enough to get in you in most cases.

🙂. But quite a bit of my argument isn't based on speculation. This is (admittedly subjective and not exactly statistical) actual stories of friends and people who post on SDN (and one story of my own) where interviewers have been very enthusiastic about candidates but end up on a waitlist.

Note that it's not just the interviewee saying "I really nailed that interview." It's the interviewer saying something along the lines of "I don't see why I shouldn't tell you you'll be admitted--congratulations." or, like I said above, another friend of mine (who also had excellent stats and activities by the way at a great school...the only thing I can possibily think of is that he was out of state for this private school) who was told "How can I get my son to be more like you?!"

Overall I think my point stands. Your interview is only a small portion of your application because there's oftentimes a large gap between the interview and the committee meeting (i.e. that interviewer sometimes isn't there arguing his case for your--it's often just an evaluation sheet). My point, then, is you could really shine in an interview (getting one of the responses I've talked about above) and not get accepted.

 

[Bond8204]

Doesn't this go with my point that almost all of the interviews are pretty much good and few are really bad or really good?

And my counterpoint to that before was that being really good doesn't necessarily mean squat. Otherwise I agree--the vast majority are pretty much good. I'd also cede that a bad interview can be an app killer.

 

[Bond8204]

I think another issue is the reputation of your interviewer among the Admissions Committee. If an interviewer submits one glowing recommendation after another, I think a cry-wolf effect occurs. On the other hand, a usually neutral interviewer who suddenly submits high praise will probably be enough to get in you in most cases.

Probably true. Goes with that "crapshoot" idea.

 

[DrBowtie]

And my counterpoint to that before was that being really good doesn't necessarily mean squat. Otherwise I agree--the vast majority are pretty much good. I'd also cede that a bad interview can be an app killer.

I thought we were in agreement, I really couldn't see your point of contention.

 

[Bond8204]

I thought we were in agreement, I really couldn't see your point of contention.

Well, good. 😳

 

[nevercold]

We have some great applicants this year, which makes it tough to differentiate them, especially on the interview. But we do to some degree.

(1) Out of 70+ interviews, I have had only 3 applicants who I felt should definitely not be students here. I have had about 5 applicants that should definitely be admitted and another 5 applicants to whom I would like to personally hand-deliver their acceptance letter. Another 10-15 get strong reviews from me, about 30 get good, but not quite at the top of things reviews, and maybe 15 or so get sort of "low pass" reviews.

(2) What I expect: politeness, enthusiasm about my school and about medicine, intellectual skill and curiosity, creativity, and the ability to genuinely develop rapport and conversation.

(3) How I differentiate:
- All of the above elements need to be there and need to be obvious.
- I ask a lot of opinion questions and I don't judge the opinion per se. I judge your ability to defend your opinion. If I ask, "Which is better?" I am also asking "Why?" This should be obvious in an interview situation.
- Was I concerned about anything you said?

(4) What you should know about the interviewer:
- Might not have GPA or MCATs. They are both important and you might need a "perfect" interview if they are weak, especially competing against many great people.
- Might not get the same opinion of you as another interviewer. Happens all the time.
- Might like to please everyone or be hard on everyone.
- Might not indicate to you what they really think of the conversation.

 

[nevercold]

Overall I think my point stands. Your interview is only a small portion of your application because there's oftentimes a large gap between the interview and the committee meeting (i.e. that interviewer sometimes isn't there arguing his case for your--it's often just an evaluation sheet). My point, then, is you could really shine in an interview (getting one of the responses I've talked about above) and not get accepted.

I make sure that my interview evaluations indicate everything I need to say or would say about an applicant. If I feel like the interview was stellar, I express that in no uncertain terms. It is an important point though that not all interviewers may do this and so a great interview might not be as supported as it should be in committee.

I think the more important point is that a school interviews more people than it admits. At my school, roughly 20% of those interviewed will eventually receive an offer of admission and I can assure you that more than 20% of those we interview end up having very, very good interviews.

 

[majik1213]

Would you say the interview ending "It was a pleasure to meet you, I have no doubt you'll be getting an acceptance letter soon" an amazing interview? How about the interviewer laughing to a friend of mine "How can I get my son to be more like you!?"

I agree, but there is an issue .. at my Penn State interview, my interviewer was like, "You know, I just can't believe it. How did you get a T on your writing sample?" I went on to say some stuff about how by luck I had good examples and thought on the fly and whatknot. In retrospect, the PSCOM ADCOM isn't gonna give a f*ck about my T, and so that part of the interview was "wasted," so to speak.

 

[majik1213]

Crapshoot is exactly the word here.

I do think that the Brand Name schools tend to weight the interview more heavily. One admissions officer told me that, and it seems to make sense since they can pretty much fill up their class with 3.8+ / 36+ applicants.

you're right .. and that's a classic "stress" question you get .. the interviewer says, "I could fill my class up with 36+ MCAT scorers, why should I pick you?" You may feel stressed, but the interviewer is actually helping you out because s/he is telling you to provide information that makes you stand out over other applicants who did score better than you did on the MCAT ..

In contrast, if an interviewer is like, "so tell me about such and such on your application" .. well .. other than verifying you actually have a clue about what you did in research .. doesn't offer much about what you can bring to the table that isn't on your application already.