It seems like most people think they interview well...

[swtiepie711]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm confused. From the interview feedback for multiple schools, it seems like most people enjoy their experience, felt they performed well, etc. However, it seems that at least more than half of those interviewed are not offered an acceptance. What is the deciding factor? It seems to me that the interview is the seal-the-deal moment, but obviously that's not entirely so?

 

[leahmaria]

I'm confused. From the interview feedback for multiple schools, it seems like most people enjoy their experience, felt they performed well, etc. However, it seems that at least more than half of those interviewed are not offered an acceptance. What is the deciding factor? It seems to me that the interview is the seal-the-deal moment, but obviously that's not entirely so?

what a great question, i would love to know too

 

[somemaybedoc]

Perhaps, and this is speculation, interviewees who have strong aps going in (good numbers, decent ecs) tend to get in if they do a decent job on the interview and don't really screw up, but people who get their interviews in spite of some deficiency have to interview really well to sell themselves to the school, since doubts might remain. Just a thought. I personally am skeptical about the idea that everyone at the interview stage is equal. By that logic the much sought after 40 4.0 wouldn't mean anything at these schools.

 

[Twitch]

Not sure if all schools do it this way but your interview is worth a certain number of points. Your stats, ECs, etc add up another chunk of points. In the end the top gets accepted, the middle wait listed, the bottom rejected.

So your interview may have been great, but in the end if your total offering in terms of point (or whatever measure you want to use) doesn't cut it you're out.

 

[modelslashactor]

interviewing is an art form that has always befuddled me. the worst interviews ive ever given for jobs etc usually result in success, while some of the best/where i thought i was most qualified do not.

although schools obviously do things differently, i think there definitely is an evaluation of whether you meet the school's philosophy. it's very hazy and to try to make sense of it would be impossible. can you tell i'm nervous 😳

 

[Doctor~Detroit]

However, it seems that at least more than half of those interviewed are not offered an acceptance.

you mean half the folks in the entire pool of applicants aren't offered an acceptance anywhere? if so, i'd say the reason is selection bias. those filling out interview info on sdn are more likely to be ultimately successful as applicants.

 

[solitude]

Most people don't interview as well as they think they interviewed.

 

[Guile]

I feel like the adcoms are misleading as well. I've heard countless stories of people getting told "We'd love to have you here." "You did great. I'd love to see you this fall." "You'd fit in well here."....and then they got waitlisted. So perhaps interviewees get a false sense of how well they did when they hear these things (rightfully so).

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

it's SDN, of course everyone interviews well

 

[crazy_cavalier]

I'm confused. From the interview feedback for multiple schools, it seems like most people enjoy their experience, felt they performed well, etc. However, it seems that at least more than half of those interviewed are not offered an acceptance. What is the deciding factor? It seems to me that the interview is the seal-the-deal moment, but obviously that's not entirely so?

Dont forget that a lot of people who walk away thinking they nailed an interview are, in fact, arrogant pricks. They are merely unaware of it.

In general, you will be oblivious to many of the weaknesses of your interview. Unless you maintain an "out-of-body" experience the whole time, there's no way you can really tell how you did.

 

[Robizzle]

Most people don't interview as well as they think they interviewed.

agreed with this dude

 

[Dr. Pepper]

On the contrary, I'd say that most people are very unsure of their interviewing abilities.

However, people are more likely to post about their experience if they have a good interview....which leads to the misconception that everyone has had a good interview.
-Dr. P.

 

[adam64897]

On the contrary, I'd say that most people are very unsure of their interviewing abilities.

However, people are more likely to post about their experience if they have a good interview....which leads to the misconception that everyone has had a good interview.
-Dr. P.

Exactly what I was thinking. SDN is certainly not representative of the entire applicant pool for any given year.

 

[notdeadyet]

it's SDN, of course everyone interviews well

Yeah, this is part of the problem. If you haven't done a lot of interviews, the odds of you actually interviewing well (despite your hunch) is pretty remote. It's a skill you get from practice, like anything else.

And the big X factor with interviews is not how well you did, but how well the other handful of applicants did that you're up against. You can actually do quite well on an interivew, but if everyone else absolutely kills it, you might be in trouble.

 

[ChymeChancellor]

Exactly what I was thinking. SDN is certainly not representative of the entire applicant pool for any given year.

Yeah, everyone on SDN also has great LORs and excellent ECs.

 

[Mr. Itchy]

I think there are a lot of liars on SDN also...

 

[Pkboi24]

I have been asking myself this question for the last month! How in the world can they base your admission on two 30 minute interviews? I feel like my interviewer barely got to know me. Not to mention, they keep telling you that stuff along the lines of "Please choose our school" as if it was my choice! Talk about giving hope and taking it away. Why people? *gets down on knees, raises arms toward heaven* Whyyyyyyyy!?

 

[JimiThing]

I recently read an article that said people who are really bad at something suffer from a double handicap: 1) they are terrible at that particular thing (whatever it may be) and 2) they are completely unaware that they are terrible at it.
I think this applies to interviewees. About 25% are really good, the interquartile range is hit and miss, and 25% suck but dont realize it - these are the ones that come here and post "oh the interview went great" when the interviewer was really just looking to end things politely but ASAP.

 

[BrownianMotion]

so how much is the interivew reallly worth? is it like say 50% of ur application? more? less? or is jus to make sure ur not a freak or somethin? i mean some skools do very laxed interviews (id assume these are worth less) versus some do panel interviews.....which skools consider a playin ground for everyone once the interview is granted????

 

[JimiThing]

so how much is the interivew reallly worth? is it like say 50% of ur application? more? less? or is jus to make sure ur not a freak or somethin? i mean some skools do very laxed interviews (id assume these are worth less) versus some do panel interviews.....which skools consider a playin ground for everyone once the interview is granted????

First of all, you should get down on your knees and thank Allah, God, Buddah, or Vishnu that spelling skills are rarely tested in interviews.
Second, check the stats. Schools that interview lower proportions of their applicants are mostly checking for character flaws. Schools that interview everyone are looking for the proper match and so the playing field evens out quite a bit.

 

[Mozzo]

People think they do well when they know they didn't "screw up". I think we're all bent out of shape about trying not to mess up that we fail to realize that an interview is an OPPORTUNITY to make yourself look really great. If you ask how many of those feedback people thought they actually made an impression rather than just a neutral interaction, I think many would then realize that they were just average interviewees who didn't "screw up" but didn't make a name for themselves either.

 

[jojocola]

Yea, I have a bad feeling that when the time comes I'm going to say something stupid.

 

[defrunner]

I recently read an article that said people who are really bad at something suffer from a double handicap: 1) they are terrible at that particular thing (whatever it may be) and 2) they are completely unaware that they are terrible at it.
I think this applies to interviewees. About 25% are really good, the interquartile range is hit and miss, and 25% suck but dont realize it - these are the ones that come here and post "oh the interview went great" when the interviewer was really just looking to end things politely but ASAP.

Yeah, did you read that on damninteresting.com? I read the same thing -- that's why incompetency in the workplace is self-perpetuating, because incompetent managers don't know they're incompetent and when they see other incompetent people, they automatically assume that those incompetent people are management material (which, ironically enough, they are).

Sorry for the using the word 'incompetent' so much.

Incompetent. If you say it enough times, it doesn't even sound like a real word anymore.

 

[GuzzyRon]

Hey guys, let's realize that the number of applicants granted interviews by schools is normally 3 - 4 times the entering class size. So, even if all the interviewees at a particular school are interview geniuses, in the end, only 25 - 33% of them will be accepted. In other words, however great your interviewing skills may be, your chances of getting an acceptance is 33% at the most.

 

[Pkboi24]

Hey guys, let's realize that the number of applicants granted interviews by schools is normally 3 - 4 times the entering class size. So, even if all the interviewees at a particular school are interview geniuses, in the end, only 25 - 33% of them will be accepted. In other words, however great your interviewing skills may be, your chances of getting an acceptance is 33% at the most.

I'm hoping that the percentage goes up if you're in the earlier interviews...

 

[Captain Fantastic]

I recently read an article that said people who are really bad at something suffer from a double handicap: 1) they are terrible at that particular thing (whatever it may be) and 2) they are completely unaware that they are terrible at it.

American Idol? 😀

 

[Captain Fantastic]

I feel like the adcoms are misleading as well. I've heard countless stories of people getting told "We'd love to have you here." "You did great. I'd love to see you this fall." "You'd fit in well here."....and then they got waitlisted. So perhaps interviewees get a false sense of how well they did when they hear these things (rightfully so).

The interviewer is only one person on a committee. I don't think the adcom is misleading -- I think people read too much into the comments of one person.

 

[Pkboi24]

The interviewer is only one person on a committee. I don't think the adcom is misleading -- I think people read too much into the comments of one person.

So what you're saying is that ultimately, your stats still make up the large part of their decision?

 

[Duchess742]

I feel like the adcoms are misleading as well. I've heard countless stories of people getting told "We'd love to have you here." "You did great. I'd love to see you this fall." "You'd fit in well here."....and then they got waitlisted. So perhaps interviewees get a false sense of how well they did when they hear these things (rightfully so).

haha, i got the "remember if you get waitlisted, it isn't because we don't want you here..."

maybe that means i'll get in? 😉

 

[DoctorPardi]

There are several reasons why it appears everyone is interviewing well, and less than half of all applicants interviewed will get in.

1) SDNers are not a representitive sample of all applicants. Most people would assume SDN applicants would have higher stats than others. So it is possible, a higher percentage of SDN interviewees could actually get accepted than the overall average of interviewees accepted.

2) A lot of the time, I think interviews are reasonably easy. What was your research about, what's your favorite hobby, why medicine, why this school? If you are on SDN, you probably have ok answers to these questions. So most people should leave interviews feeling like they did good. The problem is, if everyone on the interview does pretty good, you go back to the numbers game, and those with higher mcats/gpas and better ECs will get chosen.

3) You spent a day at a medical school, the place that is the culmination of years of hard work, and you're almost there. So I think there is a certain euphoria associated with school visits, and especially interviews, that would tend to make the interviewee feel more confident than they maybe should.

 

[Duchess742]

an fyi from the vandy adcom (i asked when i was there b/c i was curious abt this too):

the inteview is just one of the factors considered in the total evaluation of an applicant. it's not like everyone starts off the same on interview day. they still consider the other stuff even after you've all had your interviews.


i think that a lot of schools also give a weighted value to each application component, like gpa could be 40, mcat 30, lors 10, ps 10, interview 10, etc.

i've also heard that some schools consider the interview as something that can keep you out, but not something that can get you in. i.e. if you have the personality of a wet sponge, the interview will weed you out. if not, you'll remain in the pool to be evaluated on the other criteria.

(note: i'm not sure how true the last 2 explanations are...just things i've heard, but no credible source.)

 

[kemper]

Sounds reasonable Duchess742.

 

[defrunner]

an fyi from the vandy adcom (i asked when i was there b/c i was curious abt this too):

the inteview is just one of the factors considered in the total evaluation of an applicant. it's not like everyone starts off the same on interview day. they still consider the other stuff even after you've all had your interviews.


i think that a lot of schools also give a weighted value to each application component, like gpa could be 40, mcat 30, lors 10, ps 10, interview 10, etc.

i've also heard that some schools consider the interview as something that can keep you out, but not something that can get you in. i.e. if you have the personality of a wet sponge, the interview will weed you out. if not, you'll remain in the pool to be evaluated on the other criteria.

(note: i'm not sure how true the last 2 explanations are...just things i've heard, but no credible source.)

At some schools yes, but as other people on SDN have pointed out, every school is different. Other schools may have it as a custom that once applicants get to the interview stage, they are all on equal footing (blind interviews, for example). It depends, and trying to demystify it is pointless. Just be happy if you get an interview, do your best and then don't sweat it. The whole point of this application process is to do what you can and make THEM reject you, instead of you rejecting them by not putting enough effort in or something. In terms of sports analogies, you want to keep the ball in play by always putting the ball back in their court. One misstep -- you may shank it or be able to recover from it. Sorry if that seems vague but it's the best way I can describe this process as far as I know of it thus far.

Just do your best on the interview and be mentally prepared that while you did acheive a significant step by getting to it, an acceptance is by no means in your back pocket, no matter how you think you did.

 

[45408]

at UWisc, your interview simply counts as much as an LOR. Even if most people do great at their interview, it's not gonna help that much.

 

[Pkboi24]

At some schools yes, but as other people on SDN have pointed out, every school is different. Other schools may have it as a custom that once applicants get to the interview stage, they are all on equal footing (blind interviews, for example). It depends, and trying to demystify it is pointless. Just be happy if you get an interview, do your best and then don't sweat it. The whole point of this application process is to do what you can and make THEM reject you, instead of you rejecting them by not putting enough effort in or something. In terms of sports analogies, you want to keep the ball in play by always putting the ball back in their court. One misstep -- you may shank it or be able to recover from it. Sorry if that seems vague but it's the best way I can describe this process as far as I know of it thus far.

Just do your best on the interview and be mentally prepared that while you did acheive a significant step by getting to it, an acceptance is by no means in your back pocket, no matter how you think you did.

I thought the whole point was to make them ACCEPT you. Man, have I been going about this thing the wrong way...

 

[Guile]

Second, check the stats. Schools that interview lower proportions of their applicants are mostly checking for character flaws. Schools that interview everyone are looking for the proper match and so the playing field evens out quite a bit.

This is a good point. An interview hardly means anything at some schools (like UWisc, apparently) while at other schools you have almost a 50/50 chance of getting in if you get the interview.

 

[AggieJohn]

i've also heard that some schools consider the interview as something that can keep you out, but not something that can get you in. i.e. if you have the personality of a wet sponge, the interview will weed you out. if not, you'll remain in the pool to be evaluated on the other criteria.

(note: i'm not sure how true the last 2 explanations are...just things i've heard, but no credible source.)

This is what I've heard and believe.

 

[MonkeyNuts!]

I'm confused. From the interview feedback for multiple schools, it seems like most people enjoy their experience, felt they performed well, etc. However, it seems that at least more than half of those interviewed are not offered an acceptance. What is the deciding factor? It seems to me that the interview is the seal-the-deal moment, but obviously that's not entirely so?

As long as you

1.) Be yourself
2.) Are not a jerk

Then u will feel like you interviewed just fine. Deciding factor is that there are 10000 more applicants and they compare you to joe blo who also interviewed well, but probably had bettr numbers or went to some remote south american jungle to vaccinate starving children

 

[Depakote]

I'm confused. From the interview feedback for multiple schools, it seems like most people enjoy their experience, felt they performed well, etc. However, it seems that at least more than half of those interviewed are not offered an acceptance. What is the deciding factor? It seems to me that the interview is the seal-the-deal moment, but obviously that's not entirely so?

I think sample size might have something to do with it.

If you feel absolutely terrible about your personal performance, is your first instinct to go tell the rest of the premed community about it?

 

[agr285]

Hey guys, let's realize that the number of applicants granted interviews by schools is normally 3 - 4 times the entering class size. So, even if all the interviewees at a particular school are interview geniuses, in the end, only 25 - 33% of them will be accepted. In other words, however great your interviewing skills may be, your chances of getting an acceptance is 33% at the most.

Actually, at some schools (I think its more than a few) the number of accepted applicants to matriculants is close to 2 to 1, so interviewees have between a 40-50% chance of getting an acceptance. I know that at UIC in 2004, they accepted almost 80% of the instate applicants that year. There's a thread somewhere on this forums with stats for all the schools in 2004. JMO but looking at the number of accepted applicants instead of matriculants paints a much happier picture. 😍

 

[45408]

Actually, at some schools (I think its more than a few) the number of accepted applicants to matriculants is close to 2 to 1, so interviewees have between a 40-50% chance of getting an acceptance. I know that at UIC in 2004, they accepted almost 80% of the instate applicants that year. There's a thread somewhere on this forums with stats for all the schools in 2004. JMO but looking at the number of accepted applicants instead of matriculants paints a much happier picture. 😍

A surprising number of schools are this way. If I remember correctly, MCW accepts something like 300 people and waitlists another 200+, and a few years ago, they used the whole waitlist. Northwestern accepted almost half of their interviewees (like 45%), so....

 

[geogil]

I once worked with a corporate troubleshooter (read: imported consultant) whom I trusted. In his experience, the person who thought the interview went well was the person who did more talking. So, if you can get your potential employer (or adcom member) to talk, they'll be more inclined to think the interview went well than if you yammered for 30 minutes uninterrupted.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

I once worked with a corporate troubleshooter (read: imported consultant) whom I trusted. In his experience, the person who thought the interview went well was the person who did more talking. So, if you can get your potential employer (or adcom member) to talk, they'll be more inclined to think the interview went well than if you yammered for 30 minutes uninterrupted.

That's an interesting conjecture actually. The paradox is that, while it is true that having an employer speak for a while is a strong sign of affirmation, most interviewers expect you to do most of the talking, and if you don't talk enough, it can be detrimental.

So I'm just saying to take the advice with a grain of salt. You don't want to intentionally be silent and let the interviewer do all the talking in hopes that it will bode well for your admissions. It's difficult, but the only way to have a very good interview is speak well and be engaging enough to have your interviewer speak as welll...this is even more difficult considering that many interviewers are reticent, hermitlike people, or even worse, people who are meant to break you down.

Point is, speak your (filtered) mind, but if your interviewer speaks a lot, that is a huge plus.
-Dr. P.

 

[etf]

i don't think that you're all on an equal stage if you've made it to the interview. those of us that are lower on the desireability scale have to actively market ourselves, while more qualified people are usually just there so that the school can sell themselves to them. personally i have never gotten anything i've interviewed for (high school,college, jobs, research positions, and now, med school). i'm not a jackass or anything, so i've got to figure out what's up...

 

[leahmaria]

Actually, at some schools (I think its more than a few) the number of accepted applicants to matriculants is close to 2 to 1, so interviewees have between a 40-50% chance of getting an acceptance. I know that at UIC in 2004, they accepted almost 80% of the instate applicants that year. There's a thread somewhere on this forums with stats for all the schools in 2004. JMO but looking at the number of accepted applicants instead of matriculants paints a much happier picture. 😍

you know what else paints a happier picture? look at the msar gpa and mcat...those are for accepted applicants. you can only guess that the average for matriculants is a little lower...the people with the amazing scores get in at more places, right? thats the way i like to look at it..

 

[Pkboi24]

you know what else paints a happier picture? look at the msar gpa and mcat...those are for accepted applicants. you can only guess that the average for matriculants is a little lower...the people with the amazing scores get in at more places, right? thats the way i like to look at it..

Wait, I would have thought that the average for matriculants would be higher since the people with higher scores are more likely to get accepted.

 

[leahmaria]

Wait, I would have thought that the average for matriculants would be higher since the people with higher scores are more likely to get accepted.

well, they're more likely to get accepted at a lot of places and they can only choose to go to one school. so, you can assume at some of these schools that though they accepted people with 40+ MCAT and 3.9999 GPAs, those people had more choices of schools to matriculate at, so the average of people who actually WENT there would be lower.

 

[ChymeChancellor]

To get this thread back on track, has anyone done a mock interview yet? I inadvertently said some pretty stupid things that I'm glad I spilled on the practice so I wouldn't do it on the real thing. Even simple answers such as "why medicine" don't seem as easy when your verbally communicating them. And every experience seems a little trite when talking to someone about it.

 

[leahmaria]

To get this thread back on track, has anyone done a mock interview yet? I inadvertently said some pretty stupid things that I'm glad I spilled on the practice so I wouldn't do it on the real thing. Even simple answers such as "why medicine" don't seem as easy when your verbally communicating them. And every experience seems a little trite when talking to someone about it.

I haven't...and I don't think I will before my first interview...I wish I had the opportunity. Who mock interviewed you? Someone you knew well or not?

 

[ChymeChancellor]

I haven't...and I don't think I will before my first interview...I wish I had the opportunity. Who mock interviewed you? Someone you knew well or not?

My advisor who I don't really get along with too well. He has been of little to no help in this process and he seems a little irked that I am getting more interviews than the premed suckups that worship him.