Interview Weight and Results

[amylovee19]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi everyone, hope the interview cycle is going well! Just curious...

What do y'all think the weight of the interview is compared to other aspects of the application? I ask because I've had deans specifically point out that their schools don't put too much emphasis on the interview.

Also, any tales of interviews that "didn't go well" that resulted in acceptances?

 

[syn1]

Had an MMI with actors and performed very poorly, to the point where the actor broke out of character. Ended up being waitlisted. It depends from school to school probably, but I think that you're right in that it doesn't make a huge difference unless you do something egregious.

 

[hopefulCAdoc]

I know someone who felt they did really well. The interviewer even said they wanted someone like her in their med school because of how well eloquently she spoke. Still got rejected.

Same girl had a poor interview and actually cried in the car after because the interviewer disagreed with her points. Accepted.

 

[efle]

LizzyM once described a "flight of stairs" analogy. The idea is that your pre-interview application arranges everyone on a flight of stairs, with the best at the top and weaker at the bottom. Your interview is just a chance to move up the stairs by a few steps (or waaaay down if you bomb it or seem psycho). Then they start admitting people starting at the top of the stairs.

Schools will vary in how much they move people up and down off interviews. But the idea in general is pretty universal, you could have a very unremarkable interview and still get admitted because you are so strong on paper, and similarly you could give a perfect interview and still end up waitlisted because there are too many people that got to start way above you on the staircase.

 

[DoctorSwagger]

I know someone who felt they did really well. The interviewer even said they wanted someone like her in their med school because of how well eloquently she spoke. Still got rejected.

Same girl had a poor interview and actually cried in the car after because the interviewer disagreed with her points. Accepted.

Wtf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Goro]

Hi everyone, hope the interview cycle is going well! Just curious...

What do y'all think the weight of the interview is compared to other aspects of the application? I ask because I've had deans specifically point out that their schools don't put too much emphasis on the interview.

Also, any tales of interviews that "didn't go well" that resulted in acceptances?

Your interview will make or break you. My gut tells me that the Deans are saying otherwise so you won't feel stressed.

As mentioned above, most people are terrible judges of their own interview performance.

 

[Doc_Ock]

To add to the above, I had interviews I thought I aced and got waitlisted. I thought I gave my worst interview at the school that accepted me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[dodolol21]

Do you guys think if you interview with the Dean of Admissions at a T20 school and they tell you they really want you and your stats are above the medians there is a good chance you'll get in? In other words, how likely would it be for the overall committee to go against the Dean and reject them instead? Or do adcoms generally agree on people recommended by Dean

 

[dodolol21]

the dean doesnt make the decision; indeed the dean of admissions doesnt have any direct power over faculty adcom members who are with other depts. Despite the title, deans of admission are one of the least influential members of medical school leadership overall

at this school, your interviewers (in this case one being the Dean) advocate for you at the adcom meeting and recommend accept or reject. So they definitely have an influence on your decision. I guess my question is when interviewers recommend accept how often does the committee disagree?

 

[Med Ed]

Hi everyone, hope the interview cycle is going well! Just curious...

What do y'all think the weight of the interview is compared to other aspects of the application? I ask because I've had deans specifically point out that their schools don't put too much emphasis on the interview.

Also, any tales of interviews that "didn't go well" that resulted in acceptances?

The weight of the interview varies tremendously from school to school. There is no consistent pattern, and even at a single school the interpretation of interview results can vary from meeting to meeting.

 

[DrRiker]

The problem is applicants aren't always the best at evaluating whether they did well in an interview. How well you feel like an interview went has waaaaay more to do with the interviewER than your performance. For example, I'm a really friendly, smiley person - you could be saying the dumbest **** I've ever heard but I'll still be nodding, smiling, and going "oh gosh that's great, thanks for sharing that." And you'll probably walk out feeling like you did great. Another interviewer at my school could be interviewing Jesus Christ himself and be staring at him with a stone cold face, pushing back on every point he makes, and offering no positive feedback or casual conversation whatsoever. If you interview with that person, you'll probably walk out feeling like you did horribly no matter what.

And yeah, the interview is important to make sure you're normal and make sure you're a good fit (if that's important to that particular school), but the final decision-makers get input from multiple interviewers and still consider the paper application as well.

Tell me about your research
"My work focused on modifying the bulk chemical properties of water, specifically by increasing the surface tension and differentiating it into various beverages"

 

[NickNaylor]

This will vary from school to school. At my institution, for example, the interview was extremely important. This is because we had a large number of outstanding applicants on paper, thus we weren't necessarily concerned about the ability of interviewees to be academically ready to complete the medical school curriculum. At that point in the application process - i.e., after granting someone an interview - we were more interested in them as a person than in their academic accomplishments.

Of course, those things still mattered in terms of the applicant's final score, and the interview wasn't the end-all-be-all. However, a poor showing on interview day could sink an otherwise outstanding applicant. On the other hand, an excellent interview is not necessarily going to markedly change the fate of an otherwise mediocre applicant.

At least when I was applying, Mayo was another institution that was quite up front about the fact that, once you received an interview, that was the most important aspect of your application at that point.