Interviewers all on a level field?

[instigata]

---

Members do not see this ad.

If somebody gets invited to an interview, and their stats are not as high as another interviewee, do their stats still get considered when reviewing for acceptance? So what I am trying to ask is this...since all applicants who get invited to interview are people who are qualified to attend the medical school, do they get placed on the same "level" after interview when being considered for admission, or do their mcat, GPA, and EC's also factor in?

Whoops...title is supposed to say interviewEES**

 

[Smokey]

If somebody gets invited to an interview, and their stats are not as high as another interviewee, do their stats still get considered when reviewing for acceptance? So what I am trying to ask is this...since all applicants who get invited to interview are people who are qualified to attend the medical school, do they get placed on the same "level" after interview when being considered for admission, or do their mcat, GPA, and EC's also factor in?

Whoops...title is supposed to say interviewEES**

I'm sure every school is different, but I have to think there is no way this could be true.

 

[topdogg82]

actually i think it's closer to the other extreme- interview invites just mean you're above the 'threshold,' but having lower gpa/mcat/ fewer ECs is still going to put you below a fellow interviewee. for many schools, it seems that interviews are just to make sure you don't have a crappy personality and have some interpersonal skills, more than really weeding out candidates. it seems the actual decisions are still based on the entire app, and a bad interview can hurt you more than a good one can help you.

 

[Natural Light]

From what I've been told your stats matter way more than anything else, including your interview performance, when it comes to final decisions concerning acceptance. Basically, the interview can break you, but not make you.

Another thing...I was told on one interview that once you reach the interview "stage" of the process everyone is on equal ground in terms of residency. But again, that was only one school.

 

[szhao]

i think its like the essay questions, it can only hurt you. its like a gamblers ruin problem such that you only stop when you loss. therefore the probability of lossing is 100%.

 

[instigata]

I also thought the same thing, but when I thought about it...isn't an interview just to make sure you're not socially deprived and could back up your application? If so, then doing "well" on an interview would basically grant you admission since your stats are good enough for you to already get an interview, right? I mean, they don't consider people for interviews if they don't think they could get into their institution.

Sorry my thoughts aren't very coherent right now...lack of sleep 🙁

 

[Oschemi]

actually i think it's closer to the other extreme- interview invites just mean you're above the 'threshold,' but having lower gpa/mcat/ fewer ECs is still going to put you below a fellow interviewee. for many schools, it seems that interviews are just to make sure you don't have a crappy personality and have some interpersonal skills, more than really weeding out candidates. it seems the actual decisions are still based on the entire app, and a bad interview can hurt you more than a good one can help you.

This is very strange. Then why do schools invite students for interviews if they are not considering them for admission?
Maybe I am just being paranoid because my MCAT is below average and I have 3 interviews coming up

 

[szhao]

I also thought the same thing, but when I thought about it...isn't an interview just to make sure you're not socially deprived and could back up your application? If so, then doing "well" on an interview would basically grant you admission since your stats are good enough for you to already get an interview, right? I mean, they don't consider people for interviews if they don't think they could get into their institution.

Sorry my thoughts aren't very coherent right now...lack of sleep 🙁

well get more sleep haha, but i think your thought is correct for graduate schools as the interview process is just to determine how much money u get haha well at least that was the purpose for my friends

 

[DrZeke]

This is very strange. Then why do schools invite students for interviews if they are not considering them for admission?
Maybe I am just being paranoid because my MCAT is below average and I have 3 interviews coming up

Hey guys, a couple of tips with this are we all on the same level thing...

K, so last week I interviewed at a school where they:
1) prescreen for secondaries
2) only interview 400 and something, and then send out about 300 offers for admission

NOW...in that type of situation, I would say, the interview bears a lot of weight, because they've gone through lots of "check-points" to get you to the interview stage.

HOWEVER, a school like COLUMBIA (just using an example) interviews about 1000 ppl every year, or like they say 25% of their applicants. THEN after that, they accept only 15% of those interviewed. So, in that case, they are accepting 150/1000 on average.

If I interviewed at a school like Columbia (again, just using an example) I'd feel comfortable assuming that they would give me a "grade" after they interview me, and then rank me against other interviewees in making their decisions. Obviously, some people are going to score lower on the interview, but may have a higher "grade" in other areas, such as MCAT score and GPA. There are still going to be those people who perform SO badly in an interview, that regarldess of their "grade" they may not be recommended for admission at all, because of their lack of something essential for success in medical school.

The interview often tells the Adcomms things that they could not get from your paper application, such as:
1) enthusiasm for medicine (are you genuine?)
2) longevity to get through medical school - if you've never faced challenges or failure, how will you fair in medical school - in the interview, they can ask these kinds of things
3) do you really know what you are getting yourself into and are you informed.

Some people will screw up an interview, but still show strong candidacy on paper so they might still get a competitive "grade" overall.

MY POINT IS: EVERY SCHOOL IS DIFFERENT, and usually, the amount of people they interview vs. how many they accept gives you a pretty good idea of whether or not everyone is on that level playing field once they make it to the interview stage.

Hope that helps and best of luck to all of you!!! Just do your best in your interview, and be yourself.

 

[cubbbie]

I was wondering about this too, and I tend to think that we are not on a level playing field. I don't have access to the real data -- but looking at mdapplicants.com, it looks like at some schools there's a huge difference in ave. MCAT and GPA between those invited to an interview and accepted and those interviewed and not accepted. At other schools, though, there is no difference at all. At Cornell, the average MCAT was actually higher for the people rejected after an interview. Unfortunately, it is a relatively small and also biased sample, so I don't know how valid that source of data actually is.

 

[etf]

sometimes i think that schools throw out some token interviews to people with lower stats just so that they can say that everyone has a shot, thus resulting in more applications (and secondary fees).

 

[A Tree]

Indeed, I'm sure every school is different. I think it's fair to assume that there will be some sort of numerical score associated with your interview that will be incorporated into your entire application to be reviewed for final decisions.

 

[Falco2525]

I dont see medical schools making people waste time and money if they are not seriously considering the person they interview...they are not going to give someone hope they know has no chance to be admitted....

 

[45408]

It's very different at most schools. UWisc doesn't put much more weight on your interview than they would an LOR (and virtually every state resident gets an interview), but MCW's interview is the deciding factor. Everyone at an interview now has the same application, as far as they're concerned. Or so they tell me.

 

[Law2Doc]

It's very different at most schools. UWisc doesn't put much more weight on your interview than they would an LOR (and virtually every state resident gets an interview), but MCW's interview is the deciding factor. Everyone at an interview now has the same application, as far as they're concerned. Or so they tell me.

In quite a few schools actually, the interviewees are all deemed on the same level and nothing else matters. (Some schools will tell you this when you get there). Makes sense, because they used all that other stuff in deciding who gets there. At some other places, the rest of the file is still consulted, but the interview carries a huge amount of weight. And then there are schools that likely evaluate everything again. At any rate, you will often see people with higher stats falling by the wayside and into the waitlist after the interview, and people with interview-adequate but not stellar numbers who get in on the strength of their interviews.
Moral of the story, treat the interview like it's the only game in town. Sometimes it is. Practice, practice, practice. Be prepared for the most usual questions. Have good questions prepared. Be enthusiastic, excited, interested, and not passive. It is your time to shine and sell yourself.

 

[Homer Simpson]

"Interviewees on on a level field?"

For most schools, the answer is no.

 

[Law2Doc]

"Interviewees on on a level field?"

For most schools, the answer is no.

If you say so.🙄

 

[ADeadLois]

In quite a few schools actually, the interviewees are all deemed on the same level and nothing else matters. (Some schools will tell you this when you get there). Makes sense, because they used all that other stuff in deciding who gets there. At some other places, the rest of the file is still consulted, but the interview carries a huge amount of weight. And then there are schools that likely evaluate everything again. At any rate, you will often see people with higher stats falling by the wayside and into the waitlist after the interview, and people with interview-adequate but not stellar numbers who get in on the strength of their interviews.
Moral of the story, treat the interview like it's the only game in town. Sometimes it is. Practice, practice, practice. Be prepared for the most usual questions. Have good questions prepared. Be enthusiastic, excited, interested, and not passive. It is your time to shine and sell yourself.

👍

I know for sure that some schools only use numbers to get to the interview and then consider the non-numbers personal qualities. These can be derived from the interview, LORs, secondary response, experiences and the PS.

 

[psipsina]

I know that Tulane told us that once you got to the interview you were considered admissable, and then your performance during the faculty and student interviews determined whether an offer was made. I was personally told during my interview that I was going to be accepted. I'm sure other schools operate on this same basis, but certainly not all and maybe not most. It really depends on the individual school, but it would be really nice if they all were as upfront about their process as tulane was with me. to the class of 2010!

 

[Darkshooter326]

I would not think that after the interivew, only the interview matters. I echo the sentiment of many here, in saying that the entire application is probably reviewed, including the interview. I think it's just a part of the application.😳

 

[45408]

"Interviewees on on a level field?"

For most schools, the answer is no.

Which schools told you this? Because the director of admissions here explicitly contradicted what you just posted.

 

[mshollywoodmd]

Although this is a valid question to pose to SDNers, I feel people are answering from the standpoint of what side of the fence they are on(like usual)🙂 ....If you have higher stats you don't want to think the interview is the determining factor in the event that you don't do well in your interview I mean would it be fair to let that one little thing be the cause of your not getting accepted when you worked so hard for a superb GPA and MCAT?and if you have lower stats it would make you more confident to think that if you received an interview your stats are no longer in question or at least not as much as they were prior to you receiving an interview and you have as equal a chance of getting in as the guy with the 40/4.0, I mean otherwise why give you an interview?

Being granted an interview is a blessing from either standpoint because it suggests that there was something about you as an applicant that stood out among the numerous other applicants whether it be your MCAT, GPA, EC's,PS, LOR's or you had a unique name the fact of the matter is they chose you. Whether its level or not probably varies by school but what doesn't vary by school is that each school chooses certain people to interview because for whatever reason that person may be a good fit for their school, so make that reason count. Like Law2Doc stated ( in lots more words🙂 )rock the interview so that regardless of stats, you show yourself to be the good fit in person that the school felt you were on paper. just my .02....

 

[Doctor~Detroit]

At Cornell, the average MCAT was actually higher for the people rejected after an interview. Unfortunately, it is a relatively small and also biased sample, so I don't know how valid that source of data actually is.

how do you know the avg gpa and mcat for those rejected post-interview?

edit: nevermind, mdapplicants.

 

[ggman]

👍

I know for sure that some schools only use numbers to get to the interview and then consider the non-numbers personal qualities. These can be derived from the interview, LORs, secondary response, experiences and the PS.

How do you know this? Did they tell you this when you were interviewing at those schools or what? The only thing regarding this that i know FOR SURE is that Baylor interviews are worth 1/3 of your overall score when they rank their applicants for admission. However, it seems a little silly that schools would throw out your whole file once you get to the interview stage and judge you based on your performance at an interview that usually lasts no more than one hour. That would be the most random way to accept students. What if you get sick that day and you can't really show how enthusiastic you are about being a doctor or how interested you are in that particular school? It just doesn't make much sense in my mind. I wish some of the adcoms that post on SDN would shed some light on this issue.

Edit: I probably shouldn't say FOR SURE as far as Baylor goes. Let me rephrase that as "I'm semi-sure..."

 

[szhao]

we should just ask the respective schools when we get interviewed, then give some definite answers. without sources and all the speculation, we really don't know anything. if you presented concrete evidence, i am sorry for this post.

 

[GujuMD]

I don't think that all interviewees are at the same level. and after the interview...that's the only thing that counts. i wish that all the interviewees are on the same level.
but i am not really sure. the only way to know is go straight to the sources. which bring a question in my mind: would it be appropriate to ask this during an interview?

 

[GujuMD]

👍

I know for sure that some schools only use numbers to get to the interview and then consider the non-numbers personal qualities. These can be derived from the interview, LORs, secondary response, experiences and the PS.

can you give names of those schools?

 

[Lorienne7]

can you give names of those schools?

UMich and UPitt send out some automatic invites based solely on numbers.
As for this level playing field question: At UMich, at least, they claimed that the interview was just one part of your larger file, not the deciding factor in your admission. Though all interviewees are acceptable, when deciding on admission, your entire file is reviewed, which I think is a fair way to go about it. Ultimately, it's best not to overthink it - schools don't waste their time on people they're not seriously considering, so if you've got an interview invite, it's a pretty safe bet that school is very interested in you. This whole admissions process is mysterious and intimidating so just do your best at every stage of the process and hope that good things will result. That's my philosophy anyway.

 

[BrownianMotion]

Lorienne7, I never realized that the SDN logo has dr in it, thats soooo awesome...

 

[Monkey12]

If we were lucky enough to be invited for an interview, I figure we should act like we are all on the same playing field and kill it. I mean none of us really know how it works, so what's the point of worrying about it. Just do your best, if they invited you to interview, they must've seen something (maybe open to debate for the in-state auto interview invites) worthy of a second look. As for the, "maybe they need to fill a quota" theory, whatever, maybe that is the case, but if you connect on a level with your interviewer, I'd like to think they'd fight for you. The interview can only help us, and we should take advantage of that.


good luck to everyone

my 2 cents

 

[instigata]

The interview can only help us, and we should take advantage of that.

Actually, it COULD work against you if you screw it up.

 

[45408]

Lorienne7, I never realized that the SDN logo has dr in it, thats soooo awesome...

4000 posts later, and I just now noticed it

 

[Lorienne7]

4000 posts later, and I just now noticed it

lol, and here I felt like a dolt for not noticing it until last week. I can't believe I taught TheProwler something about SDN!! I feel I deserve a prize for that acheivement 😎

 

[Belfagor]

Absolutely not. Don't mind Law2Doc, he refuses to be wrong about anything... ever, and will argue to the death to avoid the even slightest possibility that what he's said isn't canonical. There are a few schools that explicitly tell you that their interview is highly weighted (or that it's the deciding factor). If they don't tell you, it's typically not.

What that means is that it's very possible to ace your interview to the highest extent and still be waitlisted or even rejected. This isn't a n=1 phenomenon, I'm sure we all know several people (or are part of the sample size ourselves) who had this happen to them. One caveat here is if your interviewer is actually ON the committee that reviews files, because it's entirely possible that they become your advocate and thus highly influential during the review of your file.

The bottom line is that for the MOST part, an interview will help you in some situations, but the biggest thing it can do is hurt you. Try to avoid racial slurs and necrophelia jokes and you'll be just fine.

 

[alwaysaangel]

Lorienne7, I never realized that the SDN logo has dr in it, thats soooo awesome...

Whoa - I noticed the difference in color but never the dr. I feel stupid.

Its like the arrow in the fedex logo. People spend all this time being visually clever and then most of us don't notice 🙁

 

[Law2Doc]

Absolutely not. Don't mind Law2Doc, he refuses to be wrong about anything... ever, and will argue to the death to avoid the even slightest possibility that what he's said isn't canonical. There are a few schools that explicitly tell you that their interview is highly weighted (or that it's the deciding factor). If they don't tell you, it's typically not.

What that means is that it's very possible to ace your interview to the highest extent and still be waitlisted or even rejected. This isn't a n=1 phenomenon, I'm sure we all know several people (or are part of the sample size ourselves) who had this happen to them. One caveat here is if your interviewer is actually ON the committee that reviews files, because it's entirely possible that they become your advocate and thus highly influential during the review of your file.

The bottom line is that for the MOST part, an interview will help you in some situations, but the biggest thing it can do is hurt you. Try to avoid racial slurs and necrophelia jokes and you'll be just fine.

You are entitled to your opinion, but please leave out the personal attacks. I stand by my prior posts on this thread. Folks who choose to believe the interview is not of huge importance at many schools are deluding themselves.
As for folks "we all know" who "ace the interview" and get waitlisted or rejected, I would suggest that the interviewee is not always the best judge of whether they aced it or not. Interviewing is a skill judged by the person sitting across from you. If s/he didn't get a good vibe, or feel you were sincere, or interested, or a "good fit", you didn't have a good interview, regardless of how you felt it went or whether you said all the right things. Interviewing is a skill, and one that can be improved by practice.

 

[CaramelDlite]

You are entitled to your opinion, but please leave out the personal attacks. I stand by my prior posts on this thread. Folks who choose to believe the interview is not of huge importance at many schools are deluding themselves.
As for folks "we all know" who "ace the interview" and get waitlisted or rejected, I would suggest that the interviewee is not always the best judge of whether they aced it or not. Interviewing is a skill judged by the person sitting across from you. If s/he didn't get a good vibe, or feel you were sincere, or interested, or a "good fit", you didn't have a good interview, regardless of how you felt it went or whether you said all the right things. Interviewing is a skill, and one that can be improved by practice.

Yes, but there are times where the interviewer will explicitly tell the person they did great, and they're great for the school and the person still gets waitlisted or rejected. Like it or not, perception has little to do with this one. I think it's fairly logical to conclude that each school weighs the interview differently so yes, at some schools it is a huge chunk, at others it is not as important. Maybe when we get on admissions committees we can share all the juicy secrets of the coveted interview process.

 

[Belfagor]

You are entitled to your opinion, but please leave out the personal attacks. I stand by my prior posts on this thread. Folks who choose to believe the interview is not of huge importance at many schools are deluding themselves.
As for folks "we all know" who "ace the interview" and get waitlisted or rejected, I would suggest that the interviewee is not always the best judge of whether they aced it or not. Interviewing is a skill judged by the person sitting across from you. If s/he didn't get a good vibe, or feel you were sincere, or interested, or a "good fit", you didn't have a good interview, regardless of how you felt it went or whether you said all the right things. Interviewing is a skill, and one that can be improved by practice.

Pardon me for the pseudo-attack, in retrospect it wasn't in the best taste.

However, I'd like to echo what Caramel said; in fact, it's what I was getting at to begin with. I distinctly remember during my application process that I was told at one school by all THREE of my interviewers how exceptional of an applicant I was and that not only were they thoroughly impressed but that they'd love to see me at their institution in Fall and that I was a great fit who would recieve their recommendation. Waitlist. Now, if I was qualified enough to receive an invite, and skilled enough to receive such praise, how else do you account for my admissions decision? I must have kicked the Dean's new puppy on the way out of the building. I was peeved when it happened, but in retrospect it's just more testament to how much of a game this process is. I've also heard several peers express the same confusion at their situation.

I think we can both agree that an applicant should not take anything for granted or analyze their interview for signs of life (or death). Ultimately, it comes down to committee's opinion and little else. Applicants should they best you can and hope for a good outcome.

 

[ggman]

You are entitled to your opinion, but please leave out the personal attacks. I stand by my prior posts on this thread. Folks who choose to believe the interview is not of huge importance at many schools are deluding themselves.
As for folks "we all know" who "ace the interview" and get waitlisted or rejected, I would suggest that the interviewee is not always the best judge of whether they aced it or not. Interviewing is a skill judged by the person sitting across from you. If s/he didn't get a good vibe, or feel you were sincere, or interested, or a "good fit", you didn't have a good interview, regardless of how you felt it went or whether you said all the right things. Interviewing is a skill, and one that can be improved by practice.

So you are suggesting that at most schools once you get an intervew everything that a candidate has done during their college career basically goes out the window and the most important thing is a one hour conversation with an adcom or a faculty member? i HIGHLY doubt that.

 

[Robizzle]

Way too many no0bs! 😀

 

[Quix]

Try to avoid racial slurs and necrophelia jokes and you'll be just fine.

Dammit, there goes my ice-breaker.

 

[45408]

Try to avoid racial slurs and necrophelia jokes and you'll be just fine.

Dammit, there goes my ice-breaker.

How much does a polar bear weigh?



Enough to break the ice! Hi, my name is......😛

 

[boo-yeh]

Try to avoid racial slurs and necrophelia jokes and you'll be just fine.

Dammit, there goes my ice-breaker.

...what if your ice-breaker included both pro-necrophelia AND racist comments? Crap. SDN has failed me!

 

[bubabugster]

Whoa, I never noticed the sdrn thing either. I only noticed the color chance. That's cool! I think it goes unnoticed because of the dark color and the brain wants to connect the r to the curved n. Now, I'm getting irritated with the r not flowing with the n.

 

[Law2Doc]

So you are suggesting that at most schools once you get an intervew everything that a candidate has done during their college career basically goes out the window and the most important thing is a one hour conversation with an adcom or a faculty member? i HIGHLY doubt that.

I'm suggesting at some schools yes this totally happens. (the phrase I used earlier was "quite a few schools", not most).

 

[Towelie]

I'm suggesting at some schools yes this totally happens. (the phrase I used earlier was "quite a few schools", not most).

I don't think anyone should take this seriously. He's definitely joking. Either that, or he's an idiot.

 

[instigata]

I don't think anyone should take this seriously. He's definitely joking. Either that, or he's an idiot.

that's harsh...I think he is making a good point

 

[Robizzle]

I can't believe this topic is still goin.. L2D I always appreciate your advice and comments but arguing with these guys is pointless.. Especially if they don't even read what you write carefully. Everybody's gonna argue w/ info for the couple of schools that they know about, and fact of the matter is no one knows for sure about every school out there.. so "many," "most," "few," all mean nothing. Just drop the topic folks! The final verdict is some consider the interview way more than others while some consider the interview as just a fraction of the full picture. You're all mostly correct, and everybody needs to chill out and move on.

 

[Towelie]

that's harsh...I think he is making a good point

No he's not. Here's what he said: "In quite a few schools actually, the interviewees are all deemed on the same level and nothing else matters."

I would challenge anyone to name one of these schools, and cite one official source that says this. No schools tell you that "only the interview" matters once you have come to interview, and that they will no longer consider the rest of your file. It's a joke. There's no way Law2Doc is dumb enough to believe any of it.

 

[Towelie]

I can't believe this topic is still goin.. L2D I always appreciate your advice and comments but arguing with these guys is pointless.. Especially if they don't even read what you write carefully. Everybody's gonna argue w/ info for the couple of schools that they know about, and fact of the matter is no one knows for sure about every school out there.. so "many," "most," "few," all mean nothing. Just drop the topic folks! The final verdict is some consider the interview way more than others while some consider the interview as just a fraction of the full picture. You're all mostly correct, and everybody needs to chill out and move on.

I don't appreciate his posts--he goes out of his way to argue with everyone, trying to give logical arguments and make points that are beyond absurd. He has 8200 posts! He must just sit in a room and do nothing but write on SDN all day. And have you looked at his posts? In general, they are almost all argumentative. Not helpful, just argumentative. He needs to get a life.