Interviewing for the Waitlist?

[RhinB]

I've recently come across this phenomenon and had no idea it existed?

I'm not even sure if it really does happen or if it's just rumor things I read on SDN, but could someone explain this to me?

As in, maybe some broad takeaways like "if you're interviewing in March you're probably interviewing for the waitlist" or the reason why some schools do this? OR if this thing actually doesn't exist - fantastic.

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WedgeDawg]

It stems from the idea that after a certain point, nearly all of the spots for the new class are full but schools will still interview applicants for those last couple of spots. The unfortunate result of this is that most of the applicants interviewed at that time are waitlisted (or rejected, depending on the school, though waitlisting appears to be more common), hence "interviewing for the waitlist".

If you want an example of this phenomenon, look at NYU's 2014-2015 thread for posts in early February.

 

[gyngyn]

Medical school admissions deans schedule a sufficient number of interviews to fill the class (given historic norms).
In some cycles, a greater number than expected are found to be acceptable to the committee. In this case, the candidates interviewing late in the cycle may not get a straight-up acceptance.

 

[gyngyn]

It stems from the idea that after a certain point, nearly all of the spots for the new class are full but schools will still interview applicants for those last couple of spots. The unfortunate result of this is that most of the applicants interviewed at that time are waitlisted (or rejected, depending on the school, though waitlisting appears to be more common), hence "interviewing for the waitlist".

If you want an example of this phenomenon, look at NYU's 2014-2015 thread for posts in early February.

Whippersnappers sure type fast.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Medical school admissions deans schedule a sufficient number of interviews to fill the class (given historic norms).
In some cycles, a greater number than expected are found to be acceptable to the committee. In this case, the candidates interviewing late in the cycle may not get a straight-up acceptance.

Excellent 12,000th post!

 

[RhinB]

It stems from the idea that after a certain point, nearly all of the spots for the new class are full but schools will still interview applicants for those last couple of spots. The unfortunate result of this is that most of the applicants interviewed at that time are waitlisted (or rejected, depending on the school, though waitlisting appears to be more common), hence "interviewing for the waitlist".

If you want an example of this phenomenon, look at NYU's 2014-2015 thread for posts in early February.

Medical school admissions deans schedule a sufficient number of interviews to fill the class (given historic norms).
In some cycles, a greater number than expected are found to be acceptable to the committee. In this case, the candidates interviewing late in the cycle may not get a straight-up acceptance.

Oh okay that makes sense.

Do either of you know whether this happens often?

And why they don't just accept those few extra interviewees? My thought was that a few more interviewees in the last interview days aren't a big deal. It would only be if a school grossly over-accepted earlier on that they HAD to automatically waitlist/reject these candidates.

 

[gyngyn]

Excellent 12,000th post!

Reads fast too!

 

[gyngyn]

Oh okay that makes sense.

Do either of you know whether this happens often?

And why they don't just accept those few extra interviewees? My thought was that a few more interviewees in the last interview days aren't a big deal. It would only be if a school grossly over-accepted earlier on that they HAD to automatically waitlist/reject these candidates.

When I say sufficient to fill the class, I am talking 2 to 2.5 times the number need to fill the class. No one wants to end up with more than the number that we can find clinical training for! No one can be completely sure how many will choose their school, a little wiggle room is far preferable to the alternative.

 

[RhinB]

When I say sufficient to fill the class, I am talking 2 to 2.5 times the number need to fill the class. No one wants to end up with more than the number that we can find clinical training for! No one can be completely sure how many will choose their school, a little wiggle room is far preferable to the alternative.

Ah I see. Yeah that make sense. But just to clarify there really isn't a "interviewing for the waitlist" phenomenon...because if you were a "perfect fit" and the "best" during that time period they would still accept you. You might have a smaller chance as the spots dwindle but that's true for the most part throughout the cycle.

 

[evansh]

Alternatively, is there any implication to receiving an II 4+ months after completion? Would it be reasonable to guess that you had been passed over once and then offered an interview after a second look?

 

[Wolf3D]

Alternatively, is there any implication to receiving an II 4+ months after completion? Would it be reasonable to guess that you had been passed over once and then offered an interview after a second look?

The answer is that it always depends on how the school in question does their pre-II screening (e.g., how many screeners, random or sequential or other pattern, committee meetings or not) but 4+ months after completion at this point would point to your assumption. My med school admissions dean made sure all completed apps were reviewed at least once before Thanksgiving. However, that's where the implications end. If you are interviewed, you are good enough to get in. Nothing else to assume there.

I won't share the schools but there are a couple out there known to have pretty inefficient/slow reviewing systems so the alternative possibility is always there

 

[evansh]

The answer is that it always depends on how the school in question does their pre-II screening (e.g., how many screeners, random or sequential or other pattern, committee meetings or not) but 4+ months after completion at this point would point to your assumption. My med school admissions dean made sure all completed apps were reviewed at least once before Thanksgiving. However, that's where the implications end. If you are interviewed, you are good enough to get in. Nothing else to assume there.

I won't share the schools but there are a couple out there known to have pretty inefficient/slow reviewing systems so the alternative possibility is always there

Thanks for the reply! So given the bold text, one should not assume that the odds of acceptance are lower given a longer time since completion?

 

[Doug Underhill]

It may exist, but if you have a II at a certain school and you want to go there, you should take it. It's the best shot you've got, after all.

 

[Wolf3D]

Thanks for the reply! So given the bold text, one should not assume that the odds of acceptance are lower given a longer time since completion?

Correct. Everyone is on some sort of internal preference list (a ladder, if you will) pre-II and it has little to do with how long your app sat in the system under review. There are people interviewed in the first month who are a "let's give him a chance to plead his case with the 31 MCAT" type and people interviewed in the last month who are a "we think he's a great fit" type. Post-interview your positions will change so there is no generalization to be had here