Interviewer's influence on acceptance

[gshocke]

hi, so this may sound like a stupid question, but I am generally interested on how much influence an interviewer has on your possible acceptance. can an amazing interview over come a red flag on your app?
ive had a couple interviews where interviewers have told me flat out they will be voting for me at committee or that they want me to pick their med school for next year
ive heard of instances where the committee can be helpful for individuals who had a 'bad' interview , because your decision wont be based only on your interviewer. but is it likely to work the opposite? where interviewers may love you but the committee is like 'errr lets not forget this red flag!'
i know every situation is different but what do most adcoms see when they sit for committee?
btw my red flag is a low mcat score.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NickNaylor]

At our committee meetings, interviews are given wide deference, but usually in the opposite direction. In other words, an outstanding interview will not get you an acceptance if your application otherwise isn't outstanding. However, a single bad interview can absolutely sink you, even if your application is otherwise good. I had a person that I was really advocating for on the committee but who wasn't accepted because one of the three interviews included a comment along the lines of "I wouldn't want ____ as my physician." The person otherwise had a great app and would've been a great student. I haven't seen the opposite, though. But this is just my school.

 

[LizzyM]

If you truly have a low MCAT score you won't get an interview. Why waste an interview slot on someone whose MCAT is too low?

An applicant with a "red flag" that might still qualify for an interview could include people who have a LOR or essays that points out a behavior or personal characteristic that might not be a good fit with that med school but the adcom may want to "see for themselves" if the applicant is 1) too quiet 2) too aggressive 3)too passive 4) overly focused on academics/research at the expense of humanism or whatever.

An interviewer will add an eye witness account that will confirm or not confirm what appeared in the letter. If the interviewer does not witness problem behavior that has been previously described in a letter, that might hold more water than the LOR and work in the applicant's favor.

 

[efle]

If you truly have a low MCAT score you won't get an interview. Why waste an interview slot on someone whose MCAT is too low?

An applicant with a "red flag" that might still qualify for an interview could include people who have a LOR or essays that points out a behavior or personal characteristic that might not be a good fit with that med school but the adcom may want to "see for themselves" if the applicant is 1) too quiet 2) too aggressive 3)too passive 4) overly focused on academics/research at the expense of humanism or whatever.

An interviewer will add an eye witness account that will confirm or not confirm what appeared in the letter. If the interviewer does not witness problem behavior that has been previously described in a letter, that might hold more water than the LOR and work in the applicant's favor.

Man, I can't believe people agree to write recommendations for people and then describe them negatively. Wouldn't it be better to tell them to ask someone else for the rec if you were going to call them aggressive or grade grubby etc?

 

[Overanxious]

At our committee meetings, interviews are given wide deference, but usually in the opposite direction. In other words, an outstanding interview will not get you an acceptance if your application otherwise isn't outstanding. However, a single bad interview can absolutely sink you, even if your application is otherwise good. I had a person that I was really advocating for on the committee but who wasn't accepted because one of the three interviews included a comment along the lines of "I wouldn't want ____ as my physician." The person otherwise had a great app and would've been a great student. I haven't seen the opposite, though. But this is just my school.

No tie-breaker? You need 3/3? That's rough...a person isn't going to mesh with everyone.

 

[NickNaylor]

No tie-breaker? You need 3/3? That's rough...a person isn't going to mesh with everyone.

Agreed, but a comment like "I wouldn't want this person to be my doctor" is pretty damning. Personally I'm a little more lenient as I think if a person has 2 strong interviews, including 1 with a faculty member, then I consider the third an anomaly. Others didn't see it the same way, though.

 

[Dr. Stalker]

I've got a question that seems to fit in here...

If a student is called for an interview, is his/her stats now meaningless? for example, if ___ medical school invites me for an interview, does that mean mcat/gpa are no longer relevant, and that they are trying to see if the interviewing candidate is a good fit for the program, how they handle themselves in an interview setting, etc.?

I've been told (not sure how true it is) that if there are two candidates interviewing at a school:
Candidate A: 27 mcat, 3.6 gpa, state school
Candidate B: 37, 3.99, Ivy (or top tier private, MIT ex)

Both candidate A and B are on the same level playing field on interview day, and the committee equally weighs them...? Can somebody clear this up? Thanks!

 

[gshocke]

At our committee meetings, interviews are given wide deference, but usually in the opposite direction. In other words, an outstanding interview will not get you an acceptance if your application otherwise isn't outstanding. However, a single bad interview can absolutely sink you, even if your application is otherwise good. I had a person that I was really advocating for on the committee but who wasn't accepted because one of the three interviews included a comment along the lines of "I wouldn't want ____ as my physician." The person otherwise had a great app and would've been a great student. I haven't seen the opposite, though. But this is just my school.

hmm thanks for the insight. in that situation, I guess one of the interviews was a dealbreaker. however do you see individuals get a 3/3 on interviews but something on their application be dealbreaker? I understand where you say that a good interview wont get u an acceptance if yur application isnt outstanding, but like @LizzyM said, if ur application wasnt outstanding enough for you to attend the school then why interview you?

 

[NickNaylor]

The problem is that every school interviews multiples of applicants more that will ultimately be accepted and matriculate, so even the interview pool is competitive. At most schools the final decision is based on a holistic review of your application. If your application is weaker than others going into the interview, it's still going to be weak going into the final decision. I'm not saying that outstanding interviews can't change that, but unless you've got something really compelling going for you it's not that likely. Your application reflects years of work/achievement. The interview day is a comparatively short amount of time.

 

[gshocke]

The problem is that every school interviews multiples of applicants more that will ultimately be accepted and matriculate, so even the interview pool is competitive. At most schools the final decision is based on a holistic review of your application. If your application is weaker than others going into the interview, it's still going to be weak going into the final decision. I'm not saying that outstanding interviews can't change that, but unless you've got something really compelling going for you it's not that likely. Your application reflects years of work/achievement. The interview day is a comparatively short amount of time.

i understand better now. thanks for the clarification. I guess the only thing I can do is wait ..

 

[Heplayer92]

I've got a question that seems to fit in here...

If a student is called for an interview, is his/her stats now meaningless? for example, if ___ medical school invites me for an interview, does that mean mcat/gpa are no longer relevant, and that they are trying to see if the interviewing candidate is a good fit for the program, how they handle themselves in an interview setting, etc.?

I've been told (not sure how true it is) that if there are two candidates interviewing at a school:
Candidate A: 27 mcat, 3.6 gpa, state school
Candidate B: 37, 3.99, Ivy (or top tier private, MIT ex)

Both candidate A and B are on the same level playing field on interview day, and the committee equally weighs them...? Can somebody clear this up? Thanks!

I think this is school dependent. If you get invited for an interview, that usually means your numbers are "good enough" to be accepted. In this case (Candidate A), your interview will play a larger role in getting you accepted. If you are Candidate B, you can have a pretty average interview and still be OK, and get accepted.

Again, this is all pretty subjective, unless you're doing MMIs, which are a bit more objective. Hope this helps.

 

[ftp902]

Is it pretty common to hear from interviewers that they will be voting for you or hope to see you here next year? can we take these comments as a way to gauge how well we did on interviews?

 

[ridethecliche]

At our committee meetings, interviews are given wide deference, but usually in the opposite direction. In other words, an outstanding interview will not get you an acceptance if your application otherwise isn't outstanding. However, a single bad interview can absolutely sink you, even if your application is otherwise good. I had a person that I was really advocating for on the committee but who wasn't accepted because one of the three interviews included a comment along the lines of "I wouldn't want ____ as my physician." The person otherwise had a great app and would've been a great student. I haven't seen the opposite, though. But this is just my school.

What more do you want from people? I.e. why bother interviewing people without outstanding applications?

 

[Overanxious]

Agreed, but a comment like "I wouldn't want this person to be my doctor" is pretty damning. Personally I'm a little more lenient as I think if a person has 2 strong interviews, including 1 with a faculty member, then I consider the third an anomaly. Others didn't see it the same way, though.

Eesh, the crazy person in me feels like i really fit this scenario. Decisions will be coming out soon and i've got a feeling i'm not going to like it. One of the best student interviews i've had...he was just great to talk to, an engaging faculty interview as well, but the admin was having some personal problems and was definitely not focused on interviewing. I definitely understood their panic and lack of focus but i really wished they had taken a personal day, though they made some excellent points and i appreciated the conversation we definitely didn't mesh. Though, i suppose working with patients will be like that to some degree...they'll be in a panic and it will be the responsibility of the dr to form a connection and gain their trust in spite of a frazzled emotional state.

 

[gshocke]

Is it pretty common to hear from interviewers that they will be voting for you or hope to see you here next year? can we take these comments as a way to gauge how well we did on interviews?

i have that same question. I hope they're not playing with my emotions. I even had an interviewer make me promise to come to the school 'when accepted'
and these are individuals on the adcom who know how competitive and how many factors go into play for an acceptance, I hope they wouldn't just tease me like that.

btw ... im sitting on 0 acceptances thus far but i havent heard back from any of the schools ive interviewed at

 

[Overanxious]

@ftp902 and @gshocke, I've had interviewers and adcoms at two schools act in this manner and I hold acceptances at both. Could be coincidence but i'd like to think we just really connected. My vote would be that they are not playing with your emotions. Though their one vote isn't going to be the end all...it certainly can't hurt!

 

[NickNaylor]

What more do you want from people? I.e. why bother interviewing people without outstanding applications?

A small minority of applicants are unusual or interesting and, though they might be stronger than the average applicant, may not be the strongest. A smaller minority receive "courtesy" interviews. But rare is the applicant that is actually "weak;" I've seen a few applications that I wasn't particularly impressed by, but without starting a flame war most of them were from URM and/or disadvantaged applicants.

 

[FFH]

Per the dean of one of my state school to which I was accepted to:
As far as the interview invites are concerned, it's based purely on academics and numbers.
After the interview, both the interview and other parts of the applications are taken into consideration.
So it is possible for someone to Ace the interview while other parts of the application was too week to warrant a outright acceptance.
You might argue that why not look at the other parts of the application before giving out the interview, well, I don't know why.

 

[ftp902]

Per the dean of one of my state school to which I was accepted to:
As far as the interview invites are concerned, it's based purely on academics and numbers.
After the interview, both the interview and other parts of the applications are taken into consideration.
So it is possible for someone to Ace the interview while other parts of the application was too week to warrant a outright acceptance.
You might argue that why not look at the other parts of the application before giving out the interview, well, I don't know why.

Although I know that's n=1 for your state school, I am sure that cannot be true for most of the schools. There are a plenty of applicants who are invited with below average LizzyM score while there are plenty of others who didn't get invites with higher lizzym score. I cannot imagine that ECs, LORs and PS are not going into consideration for interviews.

 

[RedPhys]

A smaller minority receive "courtesy" interviews.

Can you give any more information on the type of applicants that receive courtesy interviews?

 

[savithramma]

If you truly have a low MCAT score you won't get an interview. Why waste an interview slot on someone whose MCAT is too low?

An applicant with a "red flag" that might still qualify for an interview could include people who have a LOR or essays that points out a behavior or personal characteristic that might not be a good fit with that med school but the adcom may want to "see for themselves" if the applicant is 1) too quiet 2) too aggressive 3)too passive 4) overly focused on academics/research at the expense of humanism or whatever.

An interviewer will add an eye witness account that will confirm or not confirm what appeared in the letter. If the interviewer does not witness problem behavior that has been previously described in a letter, that might hold more water than the LOR and work in the applicant's favor.

In response to your question, I had a school that invited me to interview and then gave me a post-interview rejection because my mcat score was "too low". Any idea how adcoms would justify that? I had two adcoms from that school go over my file and both took time to go through it all and said I was rejected because of my mcat score. That really bothers me especially since I flew across the country for that interview.

I'm thinking that separate people choose who is getting interviewed and who is getting accepted, so their perspectives might not be confluent, and pre-interview factors can still carry serious weight in the decision making process even after interviews. How else would they whittle down candidates who all had good interviews? Throwing out those with lower scores seems pretty logical.

A small minority of applicants are unusual or interesting and, though they might be stronger than the average applicant, may not be the strongest. A smaller minority receive "courtesy" interviews. But rare is the applicant that is actually "weak;" I've seen a few applications that I wasn't particularly impressed by, but without starting a flame war most of them were from URM and/or disadvantaged applicants.

What is the point of a courtesy interview if they're not seriously considered? I'm a disadvantaged applicant and I feel like I was offered at least one courtesy interview only to be rejected bc of my mcat. Spending copious amounts of money to fly across the country for an interview and be rejected isn't a great courtesy to applicants with Socioeconomic struggles.

 

[FFH]

Although I know that n=1 for your state school, I am sure that cannot be true for most of the schools. There are a plenty of applicants who are invited with below average LizzyM score while there are plenty of others who didn't get invites with higher lizzym score. I cannot imagine that ECs, LORs and PS are not going into consideration for interviews.

It was intended as n=1

 

[NickNaylor]

Can you give any more information on the type of applicants that receive courtesy interviews?

People that are children or otherwise closely related to faculty, people that have high-power people call in and recommend them for an interview, etc. etc.. This is a small pool of people but it happens, at least at my institution.

 

[LilEngineThatCould]

In response to your question, I had a school that invited me to interview and then gave me a post-interview rejection because my mcat score was "too low". Any idea how adcoms would justify that? I had two adcoms from that school go over my file and both took time to go through it all and said I was rejected because of my mcat score. That really bothers me especially since I flew across the country for that interview.

I'm thinking that separate people choose who is getting interviewed and who is getting accepted, so their perspectives might not be confluent, and pre-interview factors can still carry serious weight in the decision making process even after interviews. How else would they whittle down candidates who all had good interviews? Throwing out those with lower scores seems pretty logical.



What is the point of a courtesy interview if they're not seriously considered? I'm a disadvantaged applicant and I feel like I was offered at least one courtesy interview only to be rejected bc of my mcat. Spending copious amounts of money to fly across the country for an interview and be rejected isn't a great courtesy to applicants with Socioeconomic struggles.

It may not be that they weren't really considering you. Maybe once they were putting all their interviewees on a scale of strong to weak, they needed a reason to accept another person over you. I'm not saying it's right, but that's probably the logic there. Someone was better and they needed a specific reason to give you to work on. It does suck though.

 

[savithramma]

It may not be that they weren't really considering you. Maybe once they were putting all their interviewees on a scale of strong to weak, they needed a reason to accept another person over you. I'm not saying it's right, but that's probably the logic there. Someone was better and they needed a specific reason to give you to work on. It does suck though.

Yea, but there are plenty of people with better mcats than me who could have just as easily been given an interview over me in the first place, while I could have been put on hold/rejected. They really could have handled it better, and the way they handled it in the first place by actually inviting me for an interview baffles me.

 

[LizzyM]

In response to your question, I had a school that invited me to interview and then gave me a post-interview rejection because my mcat score was "too low". Any idea how adcoms would justify that? I had two adcoms from that school go over my file and both took time to go through it all and said I was rejected because of my mcat score. That really bothers me especially since I flew across the country for that interview.

I'm thinking that separate people choose who is getting interviewed and who is getting accepted, so their perspectives might not be confluent, and pre-interview factors can still carry serious weight in the decision making process even after interviews. How else would they whittle down candidates who all had good interviews? Throwing out those with lower scores seems pretty logical.

If your MCAT score was below the school's average, it makes a nice whipping boy, a good excuse that seems plausable, particularly if they didn't want to get into the real reason why you were rejected that might have related to your interview. Seriously, sometimes a objective measure like a lower than average (but within the acceptable range) MCAT is easier to blame than the fact that the applicant's handshake felt like a dead fish, his breath smelled like a dead fish, and the conversation was about as interesting as talking to a dead fish.

What is the point of a courtesy interview if they're not seriously considered? I'm a disadvantaged applicant and I feel like I was offered at least one courtesy interview only to be rejected bc of my mcat. Spending copious amounts of money to fly across the country for an interview and be rejected isn't a great courtesy to applicants with Socioeconomic struggles.

Courtesy interviews generally go to very well connected, very wealthy applicants as a courtesy to an alumnus or a big donor.

 

[savithramma]

If your MCAT score was below the school's average, it makes a nice whipping boy, a good excuse that seems plausable, particularly if they didn't want to get into the real reason why you were rejected that might have related to your interview. Seriously, sometimes a objective measure like a lower than average (but within the acceptable range) MCAT is easier to blame than the fact that the applicant's handshake felt like a dead fish, his breath smelled like a dead fish, and the conversation was about as interesting as talking to a dead fish.




Courtesy interviews generally go to very well connected, very wealthy applicants as a courtesy to an alumnus or a big donor.

Is there any that I could find out the real reason or work towards improving what might have been wrong (I've been doing mock interviews with different people and making sure my responses weren't scripted/really rehearsed)? I directly asking both ADCOMs, who reviewed my application, if my interviews were the issue and if there's anything I could do to improve my interview skills if they were the issue or general interview advice. They both said the only issue they saw was the mcat and one just reminded me to always be myself in interviews, which was advice you could pretty much give to anybody regardless of how they performed.

 

[LilEngineThatCould]

Yea, but there are plenty of people with better mcats than me who could have just as easily been given an interview over me in the first place, while I could have been put on hold/rejected. They really could have handled it better, and the way they handled it in the first place by actually inviting me for an interview baffles me.

Yeah that's true. I'm sorry you went through that for a rejection, but you can always think there had to have been something they liked for them offer you an interview and it obviously wasn't the low MCAT score. I do agree that they should be better about it. I've been placed on hold at multiple schools and I'm sure it has to do with my score, but I prefer this over a dead out rejection or going through an interview if I really have no chance, I agree with you.

 

[Zelda840]

Is there any that I could find out the real reason or work towards improving what might have been wrong (I've been doing mock interviews with different people and making sure my responses weren't scripted/really rehearsed)? I directly asking both ADCOMs, who reviewed my application, if my interviews were the issue and if there's anything I could do to improve my interview skills if they were the issue or general interview advice. They both said the only issue they saw was the mcat and one just reminded me to always be myself in interviews, which was advice you could pretty much give to anybody regardless of how they performed.

I'm afraid this was the actual reason. It was kind of them to tell you, even in a vague way. I totally feel you on being rejected after flying across the country. It happened to me at Drexel. At least you know it's your interviewing skills you need to work on. It's fixable!

 

[breakintheroof]

I'm thinking that separate people choose who is getting interviewed and who is getting accepted, so their perspectives might not be confluent...

I think this is a key point that results in some unexpected outcomes in this process (like people getting invited to interview and then seemingly not considered). It seems like acceptances are generally decided on by a committee of many people, while interview invites might result from the opinions of relatively few people (or even a single one).

Also, thank you for teaching me the word "confluent."

 

[NickNaylor]

I think this is a key point that results in some unexpected outcomes in this process (like people getting invited to interview and then seemingly not considered). It seems like acceptances are generally decided on by a committee of many people, while interview invites might result from the opinions of relatively few people (or even a single one).

Also, thank you for teaching me the word "confluent."

Even the opinions of interviewers varies on the individual. For example, I'm much more likely to trust the opinion of an MS4 student interviewer over an MS1. I'm much more likely to trust the opinion of our admissions director, who has been doing this for ages, over a random faculty person I've never met. Frequent interviewers also develop a reputation; some are particularly "soft" while others are particularly "tough," and their evaluations are interpreted accordingly.

This isn't as simple as everyone seems to think. There's a lot of nuance and subtlety that goes into the whole process.

 

[savithramma]

I think this is a key point that results in some unexpected outcomes in this process (like people getting invited to interview and then seemingly not considered). It seems like acceptances are generally decided on by a committee of many people, while interview invites might result from the opinions of relatively few people (or even a single one).

Also, thank you for teaching me the word "confluent."

🙂, glad I could teach a word. Confluent sounds pretty cool, is used a bunch in medicine, and really fits this too. You hit the nail on the head about acceptances being decided by many and interviews being decided very few. At one school I interviewed at that was actually transparent about their admissions process, they actually said three people choose who is interviewed, and then all who are interviewed go through a main larger committee that votes on whether or not they are accepted.

I really wish that they would delegate duties of selecting those who are interviewed to people that really really really get medical school admissions, the committees' and school's overall preferences on applicants. If applicant has a low enough mcat low to stop them from being accepted, such as myself, then we should have our wings clipped pre-interview.

 

[Spirit of the Student Doc]

Man, I can't believe people agree to write recommendations for people and then describe them negatively. Wouldn't it be better to tell them to ask someone else for the rec if you were going to call them aggressive or grade grubby etc?

I have to agree. The personal distaste some people have in this world is rather odious and descriptive of who they are. Know this, the fact that someone has taken the time to do this only speaks of how highly they see you and should be no reason for shame. Hold your chin up and keep marching.

 

[Spirit of the Student Doc]

Yeah that's true. I'm sorry you went through that for a rejection, but you can always think there had to have been something they liked for them offer you an interview and it obviously wasn't the low MCAT score. I do agree that they should be better about it. I've been placed on hold at multiple schools and I'm sure it has to do with my score, but I prefer this over a dead out rejection or going through an interview if I really have no chance, I agree with you.

Yeah, I wonder why schools don't do that immediately. If the person flat out has no chance no reason to hold them in suspense. Listen son, we like you we really do. But, we're just not sure this is the best fit for both of us. You seem like a real nice young guy/gal and I'm sure you can get an acceptance somewhere. Best of luck to you.

 

[Sportsdude89]

On the flip side I've met many adcoms, physicians, and interviewers where I wonder how they ever got to their positions. Rude as can be be and arrogant. They say those who can't practice teach or work on committee. Ironically, the adcoms at my alma mater have been sued the most .

 

[Goro]

Yes. I've witnessed it many times in Adcom meetings.

Can an amazing interview over come a red flag on your app?

It depends upon how bad the red flag is.

but is it likely to work the opposite? where interviewers may love you but the committee is like 'errr lets not forget this red flag!'
i know every situation is different but what do most adcoms see when they sit for committee?

I've gone to bat many times for people in exactly your shoes. Sometimes one has to take a chance on an interviewee you feel strongly about. However, the Dean gets to make the final decision and may overrule not only the interviewer but perhaps event he entire Adcom.
btw my red flag is a low mcat score.

 

[Spirit of the Student Doc]

Yes. I've witnessed it many times in Adcom meetings.

Can an amazing interview over come a red flag on your app?

It depends upon how bad the red flag is.

but is it likely to work the opposite? where interviewers may love you but the committee is like 'errr lets not forget this red flag!'
i know every situation is different but what do most adcoms see when they sit for committee?

I've gone to bat many times for people in exactly your shoes. Sometimes one has to take a chance on an interviewee you feel strongly about. However, the Dean gets to make the final decision and may overrule not only the interviewer but perhaps event he entire Adcom.
btw my red flag is a low mcat score.

Goro, I enjoy reading your posts. Thanks for your work here.

BTW: I seem to recall you stating you work for a D.O. school. Would a high MCAT overcome a different redflag (I have no idea what, maybe a low sGPA of 3.0ish).

 

[Goro]

Not at my school, but it probably will if you apply broadly.

Goro, I enjoy reading your posts. Thanks for your work here.

BTW: I seem to recall you stating you work for a D.O. school. Would a high MCAT overcome a different redflag (I have no idea what, maybe a low sGPA of 3.0ish).

 

[Law2Doc]

In response to your question, I had a school that invited me to interview and then gave me a post-interview rejection because my mcat score was "too low". Any idea how adcoms would justify that? I had two adcoms from that school go over my file and both took time to go through it all and said I was rejected because of my mcat score. That really bothers me especially since I flew across the country for that interview.

I'm thinking that separate people choose who is getting interviewed and who is getting accepted, so their perspectives might not be confluent, and pre-interview factors can still carry serious weight in the decision making process even after interviews. How else would they whittle down candidates who all had good interviews? Throwing out those with lower scores seems pretty logical.


What is the point of a courtesy interview if they're not seriously considered? I'm a disadvantaged applicant and I feel like I was offered at least one courtesy interview only to be rejected bc of my mcat. Spending copious amounts of money to fly across the country for an interview and be rejected isn't a great courtesy to applicants with Socioeconomic struggles.

First, the people that select those to be interviewed at most places are on the adcom. They don't represent the whole adcom, and may not be the one that interviews you. So yes, they may not be exactly confluent. But in pretty much all non-courtesy cases, those they interview do have a chance to be accepted.

Second, they of course will give you an objective reason why they aren't taking you if they can. Saying "your MCAT is too low" after inviting you in for an interview still might mean they liked other people more but not want to hurt your feelings. Or more likely it may mean you got invited in on the borderline and really needed to wow them to vault past others and they felt you were luke warm. I'm betting there are people who got in with comparable MCATs so no, they probably weren't wasting your time giving you an interview with no shot, they were giving you a single half court shot to wow them and you came up short.

Third, at most places, the interview is the single most important aspect of the process if you get to that phase. At some places they won't revisit the application, at many they may keep the numbers in mind but will totally overlook them if the interview went well or poorly. Premeds hate the idea that someone with lower stats can zip past all their years of hard work by being affable, but it happens at every school. Most wait lists are filled with people with better stats than a third of those outright accepted, precisely because the interview is so huge in this process, and they came across as very average.

It's not enough to just not say anything stupid. The interview is not to just weed out the crazies or obnoxious people. It's a skill and those that master it actually tend to do better in this process than those with a couple of extra points on their MCAT. So definitely practice.

 

[miamiheatfan]

First, the people that select those to be interviewed at most places are on the adcom. They don't represent the whole adcom, and may not be the one that interviews you. So yes, they may not be exactly confluent. But in pretty much all non-courtesy cases, those they interview do have a chance to be accepted.

Second, they of course will give you an objective reason why they aren't taking you if they can. Saying "your MCAT is too low" after inviting you in for an interview still might mean they liked other people more but not want to hurt your feelings. Or more likely it may mean you got invited in on the borderline and really needed to wow them to vault past others and they felt you were luke warm. I'm betting there are people who got in with comparable MCATs so no, they probably weren't wasting your time giving you an interview with no shot, they were giving you a single half court shot to wow them and you came up short.

Third, at most places, the interview is the single most important aspect of the process if you get to that phase. At some places they won't revisit the application, at many they may keep the numbers in mind but will totally overlook them if the interview went well or poorly. Premeds hate the idea that someone with lower stats can zip past all their years of hard work by being affable, but it happens at every school. Most wait lists are filled with people with better stats than a third of those outright accepted, precisely because the interview is so huge in this process, and they came across as very average.

It's not enough to just not say anything stupid. The interview is not to just weed out the crazies or obnoxious people. It's a skill and those that master it actually tend to do better in this process than those with a couple of extra points on their MCAT. So definitely practice.

^^This 100%. Everyone involved in the process knows how competitive it is. Even if you think you have a low MCAT, this process is SO MUCH MORE than just numbers. You were invited for an interview due to a variety of factors on your application. I think I read somewhere once that after the interview, on average, the MCAT is the 6th most important thing on an application (I know that this varies by school). Like many ADCOMs have said, med school applicants are horrible predictors of self-interview performance. Also, 99% of the time the school will straight up not even give a reason for rejection, so it is very likely they found a reason they can give to a lot of applicants. Do not think of it as a "wasted" experience. You made it farther with that school than 85% of the applicants.

 

[Goro]

To follow up my learned colleague's comments, sometimes saying "your MCAT was too low" is much more polite than saying "you could only speak in individual sentences like Ira Glass of 'This American Life'" or "you were scary"....both real life comments from interviewers at our Adcom meetings.

First, the people that select those to be interviewed at most places are on the adcom. They don't represent the whole adcom, and may not be the one that interviews you. So yes, they may not be exactly confluent. But in pretty much all non-courtesy cases, those they interview do have a chance to be accepted.

Second, they of course will give you an objective reason why they aren't taking you if they can. Saying "your MCAT is too low" after inviting you in for an interview still might mean they liked other people more but not want to hurt your feelings. Or more likely it may mean you got invited in on the borderline and really needed to wow them to vault past others and they felt you were luke warm. I'm betting there are people who got in with comparable MCATs so no, they probably weren't wasting your time giving you an interview with no shot, they were giving you a single half court shot to wow them and you came up short.

Third, at most places, the interview is the single most important aspect of the process if you get to that phase. At some places they won't revisit the application, at many they may keep the numbers in mind but will totally overlook them if the interview went well or poorly. Premeds hate the idea that someone with lower stats can zip past all their years of hard work by being affable, but it happens at every school. Most wait lists are filled with people with better stats than a third of those outright accepted, precisely because the interview is so huge in this process, and they came across as very average.

It's not enough to just not say anything stupid. The interview is not to just weed out the crazies or obnoxious people. It's a skill and those that master it actually tend to do better in this process than those with a couple of extra points on their MCAT. So definitely practice.

 

[InsertMemberNameHere]

I haven't seen this posted yet, so I'll share with you:

https://www.aamc.org/download/261106/data/aibvol11_no6.pdf

This is a study published by the AAMC in 2011. They rated the factors most important for receiving and interview and for an acceptance. The most highest rated factor for receiving an acceptance (by a pretty fair margin) is the "interviewer recommendation."

So, to answer your question, the interviewer has a lot of influence on your possible acceptance. However, I am certain every school does things a little bit differently, and every applicant can present a unique set of circumstances to consider.

 

[MrLogan13]

They both said the only issue they saw was the mcat and one just reminded me to always be myself in interviews, which was advice you could pretty much give to anybody regardless of how they performed.

That is most likely that ADCOM's subtle way of telling you what you did wrong and why you were rejected; the low MCAT was just a more tangible reason to justify the rejection. This goes back to your other thread about being rejected for sounding too rehearsed during your interview. Basically, your answers sounded non-genuine and you did not allow your personality to really shine. Now that you know this, you can correct it for future interviews.

 

[Doug Underhill]

What makes an applicant scary during an interview?

 

[savithramma]

First, the people that select those to be interviewed at most places are on the adcom. They don't represent the whole adcom, and may not be the one that interviews you. So yes, they may not be exactly confluent. But in pretty much all non-courtesy cases, those they interview do have a chance to be accepted.

Second, they of course will give you an objective reason why they aren't taking you if they can. Saying "your MCAT is too low" after inviting you in for an interview still might mean they liked other people more but not want to hurt your feelings. Or more likely it may mean you got invited in on the borderline and really needed to wow them to vault past others and they felt you were luke warm. I'm betting there are people who got in with comparable MCATs so no, they probably weren't wasting your time giving you an interview with no shot, they were giving you a single half court shot to wow them and you came up short.

Third, at most places, the interview is the single most important aspect of the process if you get to that phase. At some places they won't revisit the application, at many they may keep the numbers in mind but will totally overlook them if the interview went well or poorly. Premeds hate the idea that someone with lower stats can zip past all their years of hard work by being affable, but it happens at every school. Most wait lists are filled with people with better stats than a third of those outright accepted, precisely because the interview is so huge in this process, and they came across as very average.

It's not enough to just not say anything stupid. The interview is not to just weed out the crazies or obnoxious people. It's a skill and those that master it actually tend to do better in this process than those with a couple of extra points on their MCAT. So definitely practice.

Thanks for the feedback, but at all the schools I've been at they've told me that after the interviews the ADCOMs review the entire application again holistically, so I'm skeptical that the rest of the application doesn't play a huge role in the process of acceptance even post-interview. There are also A LOT Of people who don't get accepted post-interview, even if you have a 30-50% chance of post-interview acceptances a lot of people aren't getting that, so it wouldn't be hard to reason that even if the person performs average on the interview, preinterview redflags/factors may be used as a quick way to reject/eliminate applicants post-interview. No doubt the interview plays a huge role as you said, but what exactly would "performing average in an interview mean" considering that based off of mere percentages alone average may not be enough to be accepted?

What you said about my mcat makes sense though being the wildcard pick isn't exactly reassuring. I prepared to kill each interview and really dug deep into learning about each school, so I really wish I could have gotten better feedback regardless of how unpolitically correct it may be. I definitely approached the interviews with a perspective that I need to say everything I can and really show my stuff to overcome my mcat scores. Schools also have median mcat ranges to maintain, so I'm on the chopping block at a lot of places I interviewed at.

 

[savithramma]

What makes an applicant scary during an interview?

probably being robotic, so passionate it's intimidating, getting angry and really aggressive, not responding to social cues, super exaggerated emotional responses in any way would be my guesses. Interviewers are like anyone else lots of **** can make them uncomfortable

 

[Pacna]

Second what above posters said. If you get an interview, you're in until you f*** it up. I've written negative reviews on applicants, I've written positive reviews on applicants, and I've written hurried, bland reviews on applicants. Everyone I have interviewed has gotten accepted except for those who I gave a negative review to. If I submit a blank interview evaluation, you're in. This is why people are advised not to have colored hair or strange piercings. Chances are good you'll get someone like me who won't care, but chances don't always go your way. Some interviewers might find those things enough to "red flag" you for being <insert negative thing here> just based on that.

 

[Goro]

Concur 100%. It actually takes some talent to bomb an interview.

Second what above posters said. If you get an interview, you're in until you f*** it up. I've written negative reviews on applicants, I've written positive reviews on applicants, and I've written hurried, bland reviews on applicants. Everyone I have interviewed has gotten accepted except for those who I gave a negative review to. If I submit a blank interview evaluation, you're in. This is why people are advised not to have colored hair or strange piercings. Chances are good you'll get someone like me who won't care, but chances don't always go your way. Some interviewers might find those things enough to "red flag" you for being <insert negative thing here> just based on that.

 

[BillrothI]

Second what above posters said. If you get an interview, you're in until you f*** it up. I've written negative reviews on applicants, I've written positive reviews on applicants, and I've written hurried, bland reviews on applicants. Everyone I have interviewed has gotten accepted except for those who I gave a negative review to. If I submit a blank interview evaluation, you're in. This is why people are advised not to have colored hair or strange piercings. Chances are good you'll get someone like me who won't care, but chances don't always go your way. Some interviewers might find those things enough to "red flag" you for being <insert negative thing here> just based on that.

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

 

[Doug Underhill]

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.