Interviewer's influence on acceptance

[savithramma]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I just had an update for those of you who commented on my post about being rejected for a lower mcat post-interview, since I called my interviewer who was a major ADCOM for that school today, and directly asked about my interview performance once more and she said I did average. Her explanation of why I got rejected post-interview for my mcat was that when I was invited for an interview my mcat was within the average of those who received IIs, but as more and more people were selected for interviews the avg mcat of those interviewed increased, so I was below the average due to the very competitive applicant pool, and got eliminated. I really wonder how many common it is for schools to do this, and at the same time it still seems strange that that wasn't foreseen before inviting me to an interview.

Either way I'm definitely going to continue working on my interview skills, since I can control that.

 

[reapplicanthelpme2014]

That may be true at some schools, but I don't think it's universal. I have had interviewers tell me point blank that they were going to write an excellent report only to end up with a rejection.

-Bill

This. And when I've called back to get feedback, one school straight up told me that my interview day was perfect and I got great reviews from my interviewers, yet a red flag on my app kept me out. Why invite me if my performance on interview day was irrelevant? It didn't matter how I did on the interview; I was essentially rejected before I even walked in the door.

 

[Pacna]

That may be true at some schools, but I don't think it's universal. I have had interviewers tell me point blank that they were going to write an excellent report only to end up with a rejection.

-Bill

No doubt. N(interviewer) = 1.

 

[Goro]

Unfortunately some schools don't pre-screen.

OR, the school liked how you looked on paper and were hoping that you'd knock it out of the park at the interview.

This. And when I've called back to get feedback, one school straight up told me that my interview day was perfect and I got great reviews from my interviewers, yet a red flag on my app kept me out. Why invite me if my performance on interview day was irrelevant? It didn't matter how I did on the interview; I was essentially rejected before I even walked in the door.

This is unusual. Most schools start out with the strongest candidates first. I suspect that in mid-stream, the dean(s) made a strategic decision to start placing more emphasis on MCAT scores.

... directly asked about my interview performance once more and she said I did average. Her explanation of why I got rejected post-interview for my mcat was that when I was invited for an interview my mcat was within the average of those who received IIs, but as more and more people were selected for interviews the avg mcat of those interviewed increased, so I was below the average due to the very competitive applicant pool, and got eliminated. I really wonder how many common it is for schools to do this, and at the same time it still seems strange that that wasn't foreseen before inviting me to an interview.

 

[deleted436726]

Unfortunately some schools don't pre-screen.

OR, the school liked how you looked on paper and were hoping that you'd knock it out of the park at the interview.




This is unusual. Most schools start out with the strongest candidates first. I suspect that in mid-stream, the dean(s) made a strategic decision to start placing more emphasis on MCAT scores.

... directly asked about my interview performance once more and she said I did average. Her explanation of why I got rejected post-interview for my mcat was that when I was invited for an interview my mcat was within the average of those who received IIs, but as more and more people were selected for interviews the avg mcat of those interviewed increased, so I was below the average due to the very competitive applicant pool, and got eliminated. I really wonder how many common it is for schools to do this, and at the same time it still seems strange that that wasn't foreseen before inviting me to an interview.

As a low-GPA applicant who was recently invited to interview at several schools, most likely because of my relatively high score on my most recent MCAT retake, this makes me nervous. Seems like they'll invite me because of my high MCAT only to reject me later because of my low GPA...Goro, tell me this isn't the case!

 

[Scribblers]

As a low-GPA applicant who was recently invited to interview at several schools, most likely because of my relatively high score on my most recent MCAT retake, this makes me nervous. Seems like they'll invite me because of my high MCAT only to reject me later because of my low GPA...Goro, tell me this isn't the case!

I am in a similar situation with several of the schools I applied to, but my approach has been that not interviewing there at all is a guaranteed 0% chance of acceptance. If these are schools you have a high interest in attending and you are able to afford the cost of interviewing (in terms of money, time, and effort) then going is a better option than not.

 

[flyingeagle]

It's interesting that that AAMC survey lists sGPA>cGPA >MCAT as the most important factors in determining whether an applicant gets interviewed or accepted, but the published stats seem to indicate that a poor GPA is less damaging than a poor MCAT. For example, white applicants with a GPA between 3.8 and 4 (an excellent GPA) and a MCAT of 24-26 (a poor MCAT) only had a 37.5% chance (worse than a coin toss) of at least one MD acceptance in 2013, while white applicants with a GPA between 3.2 and 3.39 (a poor GPA) and a MCAT of 39-45 (an excellent MCAT) had a 62.5% chance (better than a coin toss) of at least one MD acceptance.

The difference in numbers between the two is striking: there were 751 white applicants with excellent GPAs and poor MCATs, while only 16 white applicants with poor GPAs and excellent MCATs. Perhaps the "excellent test taker" personality also excels at interviews: they may be more relaxed and have multiple encounters with failure to lessen their fear of it.

I don't think that's a great comparison: a 39-45 MCAT is much rarer/harder to achieve than a 3.8-4.0. A 39-45 MCAT is like the top 1% of test takers but I'm sure a much higher proportion of med school applicants have between a 3.8-4.0 GPA. However, I do agree with your main point in that they value the MCAT more.

 

[Goro]

I can't sugar coat this...this has happened many times at my school. Typically the meeting goes like this:

Interviewer: "Nice guy/gal, but I'm really worried about that low sGPA."

And onto the wait list the candidate goes.

There are also plenty of times where the interviewer makes such a strong case for the interviewee that despite the low GPA ( or MCAT), we feel that we want to take a chance on the person.

As a low-GPA applicant who was recently invited to interview at several schools, most likely because of my relatively high score on my most recent MCAT retake, this makes me nervous. Seems like they'll invite me because of my high MCAT only to reject me later because of my low GPA...Goro, tell me this isn't the case!

I strongly agree. The avg GPA of the top 20 schools is 3.9(!), but the MCAT avg's are at 36 or 37.
I don't think that's a great comparison: a 39-45 MCAT is much rarer/harder to achieve than a 3.8-4.0. A 39-45 MCAT is like the top 1% of test takers but I'm sure a much higher proportion of med school applicants have between a 3.8-4.0 GPA.

 

[miszfifi820]

This. And when I've called back to get feedback, one school straight up told me that my interview day was perfect and I got great reviews from my interviewers, yet a red flag on my app kept me out. Why invite me if my performance on interview day was irrelevant? It didn't matter how I did on the interview; I was essentially rejected before I even walked in the door.

was your red flag mcat related, similar to OP? something that some ppl mentioned shouldn't hold as much of a weight once you get the actual interview?

 

[FFH]

Based on the data reported by Michigan on their admission website at different time points:

1. Average MCAT/GPA goes down as the interview season progresses for both the interviewed and for the accepted students. (Adcoms at several schools where interviewed had said: as the interview season progresses the quality of applicants go down. The Hopkins FB website addressed similar sentiment. Gyngyn also said that.)

2. Accepted students have a higher MCAT/GPA than the interviewed students.
So, either MCAT/GPA are correlated with interview performance (both MMI and traditional interviews are conducted at Michigan), or MCAT/GPA still play roles post interview. I won't attempt to discuss this because I have no clue. Maybe the adcoms wouldn't mind talk about it.

Two charts attached. The tracker_3 is published in Oct 19th I believe. The tracker_5 is recent.

 

[TyrKinase]

At my alma mater where I was involved with ranking applicants post-interview, the process worked like this:

• Applicants to the SOM were invited to interview by the Dean of Admissions based on stats, secondary responses, recommendations from current students, etc.
• At the interview day, applicants had two "formal" interviews with faculty/staff and one "informal" interview with a current med student over lunch
• All three interviewers (two faculty, one student) completed post-interview assessments using a standardized form, submitted to the admissions committee. Interviewers answered questions regarding the applicant's strengths/weaknesses and relative suitability to the SOM and it's mission
• A few (more than three, fewer than ten) adcom reviewers would "grade" the applicant on a numerical scale based on a holistic review of the original application (AMCAS, secondaries) and the interviewers' submitted standardized assessments
• These "grades" would be given a simple numerical average (total score divided by # of adcom members doing the grading)
• Applicants achieving a certain "grade" would be accepted; those falling below the threshold would be waitlisted or (rarely) rejected

The point of all this is that applicants having one particularly strong (or lukewarm) interview weren't necessarily a slam dunk for acceptance. The application process is designed such that applicants are not typically admitted or denied acceptance based on one interviewer's assessment, and multiple levels of abstraction help to eliminate positive and negative biases.

The one catch is that if one of the adcom members doing the "grading" could give the applicant a low numerical assessment, essentially dropping the average overall "grade" of the applicant and prohibiting him/her from acceptance. For example, suppose applicants are graded on a 0-10 scale post-interview by the adcom reviewers, and applicants receiving a total score >7.5 are admitted, while those 5-7.5 are waitlisted, and <5 are rejected. In this case, an applicant has 4 reviewers, each assigning a grade. The applicant receives four grades: 8, 9, 8 and 4 (let's say the final guy got hung up on the applicant's sGPA). The applicant then receives an average score of 7.25, putting him/her in the waitlisted category.

Scary, I know but I only really saw this happen once. Most of the time, applicants are well-received, and are scored (and accepted) accordingly.

Hope this helps!

 

[FFH]

At my alma mater where I was involved with ranking applicants post-interview, the process worked like this:

• Applicants to the SOM were invited to interview by the Dean of Admissions based on stats, secondary responses, recommendations from current students, etc.
• At the interview day, applicants had two "formal" interviews with faculty/staff and one "informal" interview with a current med student over lunch
• All three interviewers (two faculty, one student) completed post-interview assessments using a standardized form, submitted to the admissions committee. Interviewers answered questions regarding the applicant's strengths/weaknesses and relative suitability to the SOM and it's mission
• A few (more than three, fewer than ten) adcom reviewers would "grade" the applicant on a numerical scale based on a holistic review of the original application (AMCAS, secondaries) and the interviewers' submitted standardized assessments
• Applicants achieving a certain "grade" would be accepted; those falling below the threshold would be waitlisted or (rarely) rejected

The point of all this is that applicants having one particularly strong (or lukewarm) interview weren't necessarily a slam dunk for acceptance. The application process is designed such that applicants are not typically admitted or denied acceptance based on one interviewer's assessment, and multiple levels of abstraction help to eliminate positive and negative biases.

Hope this helps!

Wow. This is extremely informative. Thanks!
I have some questions:
Would the applicant be informed about the evaluation that takes place during lunch with med student? How are the med students assigned to the applicants? What would happen an applicant just sat there and eat one's lunch without making a sound?

 

[moisne]

Depends on the school. My interview was the biggest reason I was accepted I think. I'm pretty normal everywhere - nothing that really truly stands out on paper. But my interviewers really really liked me - as I am told when they called.

 

[DoctorLacrosse]

I feel like I've been very fortunate with all the interviews I've gotten, but this is my biggest fear all in one thread lol.

I've been told I interview extremely well and I'm a pleasure to speak to by almost every interviewer I've had, yet I have this constant thought that ill just be rejected anyway by the committees due to subpar stats. I plan to just keep worrying about what I can control and give it my all at every interview. it's all we can do really.

 

[sunnysnow7]

Wow. This is extremely informative. Thanks!
I have some questions:
Would the applicant be informed about the evaluation that takes place during lunch with med student? How are the med students assigned to the applicants? What would happen an applicant just sat there and eat one's lunch without making a sound?

I *think* @TyrKinase was referring to Tulane. At Tulane, applicants know that they are being evaluated at the lunch interview. Their website explains the process in more detail.

 

[gshocke]

I *think* @TyrKinase was referring to Tulane. At Tulane, applicants know that they are being evaluated at the lunch interview. Their website explains the process in more detail.

drexel does this also. the lunch is pretty good

 

[Sportsdude89]

I think what really bothers me is that so many schools correlate high MCATS and GPAs with being competent physicians. Obviously they want students who are going to be able to get through medical school but I believe that in the process, they sacrifice this for other students who will be higher quality physicians well respected by their patients. I wish that admissions took more into consideration how you interact with people and work with patients from all backgrounds and with all different types of situations and medical conditions.