Is there any advantage to a morning interview vs. an afternoon one?

[814965]

?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LnSin]

Depends on how long it takes for the coffee to hit you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LnSin]

Whether it hits you to wake you up and be that enthusiastic applicant
or it fills your bladder and makes you the squirmy applicant

"Yes"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whyamionhere]

Also depends how much sleep you get the night before. I got a whopping 1 hour before my interview at my top choice last year, ran on adrenaline through my morning interview, and would have been barely putting together a coherent sentence by the afternoon.

I also hate interviewing right after lunch because 1. Too nervous to eat so it ruins the lunch 2. Odds are I'll spill something on myself

 

[Goro]

?

No

 

[814965]

I'm more curious about the interviewer's side - If they're more likely to remember applicants from one session, if the morning is worse if they're not morning person or thinking more about lunch, or if the afternoon could be worse because interviewers could be tired and thinking moe about leaving for the day. It probably varies from interviewer to interviewer, but I was just curious.

 

[SpoiledMilk]

Hmmm. Primacy vs. Recency effect.. Very early cycle II session vs. very late cycle II session.

Wonder if one of the SDN numbers gurus like @efle or @Lawper have a chart or graph listing offers of acceptances for applicants in early or late cycle IIs.

 

[Whyamionhere]

I'm more curious about the interviewer's side - If they're more likely to remember applicants from one session, if the morning is worse if they're not morning person or thinking more about lunch, or if the afternoon could be worse because interviewers could be tired and thinking moe about leaving for the day. It probably varies from interviewer to interviewer, but I was just curious.

I doubt within the same day this would have an effect. If you are a boring or charismatic enough person it will either bore or captivate the interviewer the same way at any time of day I would imagine.

 

[Lawpy]

Hmmm. Primacy vs. Recency effect.. Very early cycle II session vs. very late cycle II session.

Wonder if one of the SDN numbers gurus like @efle or @Lawper have a chart or graph listing offers of acceptances for applicants in early or late cycle IIs.

Within a day, morning vs afternoon doesn't matter. But for early vs late cycle interviews, the best I found was the following by @planeblue Planeblue's Interview Invite Tracker

I suspect since admissions is mostly on a rolling basis, the acceptance curve follows something similar to this, meaning that attending early interviews matters for getting acceptances earlier, while attending late interviews can put applicants at risk of getting waitlisted. Not sure how nonrolling schools would work though.

 

[Lyoness]

Afternoon is better because by then you already had your daily number 2


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Lyoness]

And to be accepted to medical school you, of course, need to be number 1

But to be number 1 you can't have a number 2


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[enchantediris]

But to be number 1 you can't have a number 2

Nah, you can't be number 1 without passing number 2.

(Apparently this is what I've devolved into in the past couple of weeks...)

 

[Lyoness]

Nah, you can't be number 1 without passing number 2.

(Apparently this is what I've devolved into in the past couple of weeks...)

I think it's better to be sleepy than constipated


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Goro]

I'm more curious about the interviewer's side - If they're more likely to remember applicants from one session, if the morning is worse if they're not morning person or thinking more about lunch, or if the afternoon could be worse because interviewers could be tired and thinking moe about leaving for the day. It probably varies from interviewer to interviewer, but I was just curious.

After awhile they all gel. This is why we have to write up our comments about them immediately after the interviewer. By the time we get around to our Adcom meeting some 2-3 weeks after each interview, the candidates become simply "that kid on the left", or "the one sitting in front me".

 

[Lawpy]

Afternoon is better because by then you already had your daily number 2


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

And to be accepted to medical school you, of course, need to be number 1

But to be number 1 you can't have a number 2


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Nah, you can't be number 1 without passing number 2.

(Apparently this is what I've devolved into in the past couple of weeks...)

I think it's better to be sleepy than constipated


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Definitely, you dont want to have an interviewer think that you are full of ****

uhhh... some people are eating here.

 

[Lyoness]

Definitely, you dont want to have an interviewer think that you are full of ****

Otherwise you'll piss him off

 

[efle]

Just speculating here, but I actually think being a later interview slot in the same day can be a huge advantage or disadvantage depending on who got interviewed before you. If your predecessor was phenomenal, probably not great to be compared to them (consciously or subconsciously). If they are a painful trainwreck though, then maybe you just do decent but by comparison you look fantastic.

 

[Lawpy]

Just speculating here, but I actually think being a later interview slot in the same day can be a huge advantage or disadvantage depending on who got interviewed before you. If your predecessor was phenomenal, probably not great to be compared to them (consciously or subconsciously). If they are a painful trainwreck though, then maybe you just do decent but by comparison you look fantastic.

I thought applicants/interviewees aren't compared directly to one another.

 

[MonkeyArrow]

I thought applicants/interviewees aren't compared directly to one another.

Theoretically. I think there is always some form of unconscious bias, because at the end of the day, you are compared against others.

 

[Lawpy]

Theoretically. I think there is always some form of unconscious bias, because at the end of the day, you are compared against others.

I don't think interviewer cognitive biases are significant enough to warrant huge advantages/disadvantages, especially since the final decisions are made by the overall admissions committee where interviewer comments may not have a significant impact. Also there are usually a few interviewers assigned in interview day to minimize these biases (and a lot more in cases of MMIs).

 

[7331poas]

I dont have a conclusion, but I think there definitely is a bias at play in interview times. Not dissimilar to judges giving heavier sentences in the hours preceding lunch.

 

[enchantediris]

I don't think interviewer cognitive biases are significant enough to warrant huge advantages/disadvantages, especially since the final decisions are made by the overall admissions committee where interviewer comments may not have a significant impact. Also there are usually a few interviewers assigned in interview day to minimize these biases (and a lot more in cases of MMIs).

I think it depends on how each school's review process is set up. At Harvard, for example, I've heard that an application only goes to the full committee for review if both interviewers give the go ahead, so an interviewer having an especially bad day could sink your application there.

 

[efle]

An interviewer trashing your performance will sink you at any competitive school. Especially up in the stratosphere where you usually have 3-4 people interviewed per offer given, all with strong numbers and ECs.

 

[Lawpy]

I think it depends on how each school's review process is set up. At Harvard, for example, I've heard that an application only goes to the full committee for review if both interviewers give the go ahead, so an interviewer having an especially bad day could sink your application there.

In this case, the interviewer should recuse themselves. Although apparently @Goro suggests reporting bad interviewers since they contaminate the evaluation process but I have no idea how that works, and if anything, can actually make applicants look worse to the schools and be rejected.

An interviewer trashing your performance will sink you at any competitive school. Especially up in the stratosphere where you usually have 3-4 people interviewed per offer given, all with strong numbers and ECs.

Assuming the interviewer evaluated fairly.

 

[efle]

Assuming the interviewer evaluated fairly.

Which they really don't, I'm too lazy to find the study right now but one paper found that 50% of an applicant's rating depended upon who they were matched up with. You'll experience it in the coming months but sometimes you just are/aren't able to vibe right with your person.

The fact that we apply to large numbers of schools helps fight the effect a little, but unless you are a major outlier (URM with an 80 LizzyM, multiple high level pubs as an undergrad, etc) your options for med school will often hinge on who happens to review your app or who happens to be your interviewer.

 

[Lawpy]

Which they really don't, I'm too lazy to find the study right now but one paper found that 50% of an applicant's rating depended upon who they were matched up with. You'll experience it in the coming months but sometimes you just are/aren't able to vibe right with your person.

The fact that we apply to large numbers of schools helps fight the effect a little, but unless you are a major outlier (URM with an 80 LizzyM, multiple high level pubs as an undergrad, etc) your options for med school will often hinge on who happens to review your app or who happens to be your interviewer.

But there are at least 2 interviewers in a traditional interview. If one gives a bad evaluation and other gives a good evaluation, they average out to be average (assuming both interviewers have equal importance to adcoms). It would require bad evaluation from both interviewers to be sunk.

 

[efle]

But there are at least 2 interviewers in a traditional interview. If one gives a bad evaluation and other gives a good evaluation, they average out to be average (assuming both interviewers have equal importance to adcoms). It would require bad evaluation from both interviewers to be sunk.

Not really. If only 1/3 or 1/4 people interviewed are going to be offered a seat, having just one crappy eval can be enough to knock you out, because there will be many others that got 2 good ones or maybe 1 good and 1 meh.

 

[rabbott1971]

With professional interviewers it seems like it shouldn't matter. Everyone is human though. Could be grouchy first thing in the morning, or could be worn down and sick of it by the afternoon. The only thing you can control is yourself!

 

[Lawpy]

Not really. If only 1/3 or 1/4 people interviewed are going to be offered a seat, having just one crappy eval can be enough to knock you out, because there will be many others that got 2 good ones or maybe 1 good and 1 meh.

Well that's surprising and unfortunate. I guess that's a major reason why MMIs are becoming increasingly important and common.